Anti-Semitism

Lord Janner of Braunstone: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will consult colleagues in the European Union concerning anti-Semitism in Europe.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the Government deplore and condemn anti-Semitism in all its manifestations. We also deplore and condemn all other forms of racial and religious intolerance. The EU and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe are active in the fight against intolerance, and both we and our colleagues in the Home Office work closely with our European counterparts towards its elimination. As my noble friend will know, we were active participants in the OSCE conference on anti-Semitism and on other forms of intolerance, held in Cordoba in June.

Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does he recognise the serious, alarming and dangerous growth of anti-Semitism in most European countries over the past five years? Will Her Majesty's Government now press the OSCE formally and urgently to adopt the EUMC working definition of anti-Semitism and will the UK set an example by endorsing that document without delay?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I agree that there has been growing evidence of anti-Semitic incidents, including violence against people, synagogues, graveyards and many other targets, but I do not think that it is a matter of others adopting a particular definition. We believe that the monitoring centre has produced a useful list of behaviours and a practical guide to identifying the kinds of incidents for collecting data and for making sure that implementation of legislation works well. In our criminal justice system, in which we have strong and effective laws against racial discrimination and racially aggravated crimes, we have chosen a broader definition. Racial hatred is hatred against a group of persons identified by reference to colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins. That broad compass demonstrates our abhorrence, together with all others, of these crimes, whether the victims are Jewish or from any other community.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, do not the dreadful scourge of anti-Semitism anywhere in the world and the mad rantings of President Ahmadinejad about Israel, naturally and understandably underscore Israel's preoccupation with security as one of its leading objectives? Equally, should not the British Government refuse to be deflected in any way from the need, particularly in the remaining days of their EU presidency, to ensure that the Sharon caretaker government now proceed with all speed to stop their illegal and inhumane treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank and to provide a real start to the peace talks under the road map that were promised at Sharm el-Sheikh?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I should imagine that everyone in the House will find the comments by the new Iranian president, now on at least two occasions, to be absolutely abhorrent. We have obligations, expressed in this House, to make sure that the peace process is driven forward.
	Perhaps I may make a more general point. Some people use criticism of Israel as a cover for anti-Semitism, as some people use criticism of African countries as a cover for other kinds of racism. That fact should make us pause, but it should not lead to anyone believing that it is improper to have a rigorous analysis of what happens in Israel. We should be prepared, on the basis of friendship, to be critical when that is necessary.

The Lord Bishop of Southwell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a freshly articulated definition of anti-Semitism, such as that of the EUMC, would perhaps be a useful guide for society as a whole, especially for relevant authorities such as the police and the Crown Prosecution Service?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I agree with the right reverend Prelate. The extended definition that is provided should help a number of organisations, including the police, to gather and analyse information and ensure that we are able to distinguish some of the specificities that occur in racism as well as the generality of the crime. I welcome the definition for that reason.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, anti-Semitism is, of course, disgusting and is to be deplored wherever it occurs. The EU monitoring committee in Vienna in its annual report says that only two member countries are actually reporting anti-Semitic incidents thoroughly. Are we, as I hope we are, one of the two? Is another seminar planned at EU level? There was one last year and there was talk of a second, but it seems to have been delayed. Can the Minister bring us up to date on that?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am not certain of the stage that planning has reached but I believe that it is hoped to hold a second seminar. We are trying to ensure that all hate crimes concerning racism and hostility towards people because of their religion are prosecuted under one rubric, but we want enough information on different kinds of hate crime so that it is possible to take appropriate action. I shall put the point in more general terms. It is very important that Islamophobia is dealt with properly and fully by the law, but if it is swept up without any consideration for its specifics, we shall not approach the subject as thoroughly as we should.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the Minister did not answer my noble friend's question. Are we one of the two countries, or not?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am pretty confident, in view of the way in which the police keep records of what material should be prosecuted and the way in which the DPP consider it, that specific information is recorded. We do not differentiate one kind of hate crime from another when collecting statistics. I am sorry if I did not answer the question fully before.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we have tough laws in this country to deal with racial and religious discrimination. Does the Minister accept that the EUMC definition document will be helpful to our police and the CPS to pursue cases more vigorously in this country and, more importantly, that it will help to set common standards throughout Europe?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I have made the point that we have rigorous legislation. Further differentiation in pursuing hate crimes will not necessarily help. I draw the attention of noble Lords to the 532 anti-Semitic incidents recorded in 2004—the highest level since records began in 1984—but there were 50,000 reported incidents of hate crime. When we view the matter in perspective, each of the different bits is important. Understanding the totality of our problem is very important too.

Baroness Tonge: My Lords, I too abhor anti-Semitism and the persecution of any people on the basis of gender, race, colour or creed. In his earlier remarks I believe the Minister was hinting that there could be a connection between the actions of the Israeli Government and the resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe. Does he think that it is now extremely urgent that he talks to his European counterparts and takes some action to make the Israeli Government comply with international law?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I do not believe that for a second. I regret that the question was asked in those terms. Anti-Semitism has been a scourge in Europe, irrespective of the existence of Israel or any Israeli activity, across the whole of recorded history. It is high time that we recognise it for the evil that it is, just as we would with Islamophobia or other crimes of this kind.

Household Waste

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress they are making to ensure that all householders are aware of their new duties under the Waste (Household Waste Duty of Care) (England and Wales) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/2900).

Lord Bach: My Lords, we have worked with the Local Government Association and the Environment Agency to raise awareness of these regulations. A press release was issued on 18 October publicising fly-tipping data and confirming the intention to lay the regulations. A second press release was issued on 14 November. The Local Government Association sent an alert to all local authority chief executives on 27 October. If local authorities choose to use this new enforcement tool, they are also likely to carry out local publicity campaigns.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and for what has been done so far. He will be aware that at the beginning of November the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee reported its concern that not enough had been done to put householders on notice. The Government then acted in the middle of November. Have they any means of discovering what reaction there has been to their efforts?

Lord Bach: My Lords, yes. We were aware of the reports made by the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee and the concerns that were raised. We have provided the committee with additional information.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, is the publicity that has been given to these regulations sufficient and is it enough to rely on local authorities to publicise them? Is there not scope for a national publicity campaign so that householders may better understand the obligations which rest with them if they dispose of waste to an illegal contractor?

Lord Bach: My Lords, we have not relied only on local authorities, assuming that they will necessarily publicise the scheme. I ought to make it clear to the House that the regulations do not require a significant change in behaviour on the part of householders. In the majority of situations, householders will continue to have their household waste collected by the local authority.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, are there plans to review the way in which the new directive is working? Is the Minister aware that for many people it is extremely inconvenient and unhygienic that household rubbish is now collected only once every two weeks instead of weekly? Why does there seem to be a post-code selection in that matter? Is the Minister further aware that hot summer weather has the most unpleasant effect on a great deal of household rubbish, particularly the remains of a meat joint or a fish dish, and certainly after the first week it smells to high heaven?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am well aware that in some local authorities the collection of waste is on the basis described by the noble Baroness, which can cause considerable difficulties. She will know that we are concerned not to overburden local authorities from central government. It is up to them to decide how to do this, within certain parameters. The noble Baroness knows that if there are complaints about particular local authorities, they should be complained to loudly.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, given that our recycling rates have been increased recently but are nothing like as good as other countries such as the Netherlands and Australia, where up to nearly 50 per cent of waste is recycled, is the Minister satisfied that packaging is under as much control as it should be so that only the minimum amount is used for household goods?

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right; in 2003–04 we recycled 17.7 per cent. However, about half of our household waste could be recycled, so we have a long way to go. Of course, no one is satisfied that the amount of packaging is necessarily appropriate. Much work could be done there, too, and it is about time it was done.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, is fly-tipping on the increase?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Baroness whether fly-tipping is on the increase. All I can say, and I am sure that the House will share my view, is that any fly-tipping is a disgrace. We think that it occurs for a number of reasons: sometimes because producers of waste are ignorant of their responsibilities for the waste that they produce, and sometimes because householders would rather throw their bulky waste away in a lay-by than contact the local authority to come to collect it, perhaps because some local authorities charge for that service. Frankly, a lot of fly-tipping occurs because some householders blatantly disregard their responsibilities, and the effect on the rest of us is obvious.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that reducing the total amount of waste is the preferred option and is better than recycling? In that context, would he like to say anything about the Government's present thinking about putting a tax on plastic bags? They do not have a large volume, but they last hundreds, if not millions, of years and it would be easy to solve the problem, as has been done in Ireland. Put a tax on them and the volume of plastic bags will fall immediately.

Lord Bach: My Lords, my noble friend has previously asked a Question about this in practically the same form. I am afraid my answer also will be in practically the same form. The Irish example is a good one, and there are many attractions in what they have done, but matters of taxation are not a matter for Defra.

EU: Criminal Law

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the European Court of Justice has issued a judgment agreeing that the European Commission has the power to require European Union member states to prosecute breaches of European law in their national courts.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the European Court of Justice judgment confirmed that where criminal sanctions are essential to ensure that the community's rules are effective, the Commission may propose them. The member states would still have to agree any such proposals in the Council through the normal legislative procedure. The judgment also confirmed that, as a general rule, criminal law matters do not fall within the Community's competence.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Since this judgment was strongly opposed by three-quarters of the member states, including the United Kingdom, does it not make a mockery of the claim that our democracy is safeguarded in the Council of Ministers? Secondly, is there anything to stop this judgment eventually being extended to cover all EU laws, together with relevant penalties, including prison sentences, whether the Government support them or not?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I do not believe that there is much scope for extension because the issues that can be considered have to be of importance across the Community. Some of them are international matters, and there has frequently been a demand in this House that we try to get a better level of co-ordination. If someone pollutes up-river in Hungary, the pollution also has to be dealt with in Germany. When there is money laundering in one country, it is usually also happening in another country. Some degree of international response is helpful.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is this not the first time in British legal history that any organisation would be able to impose criminal penalties on British people without the consent of the British Government and Parliament?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I think that there may be a misapprehension about what is being done. The ruling reiterated that criminal law is not generally a matter for the European community. I have given the example of wilful pollution and other things that go across borders where there is a general Community interest. The European Commission can bring forward a proposal only where criminal sanctions are necessary to the fulfilment of a Community objective. Any proposal for criminal sanctions must be approved by member states and enforcement remains a matter for member states. Therefore, the judgment does not change the fact that member states would have to implement community law and enforce it if they made the decision to do so. I think that we may be over-anxious about something that is not going to happen.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, as the noble Lord points out, the judgment is limited to pollution, which of course crosses national boundaries. Is not the Commission, with the consent and support of the European Parliament and the Council, the right body to determine fair play between the member states and to ensure that those member states introduce criminal sanctions on those who cheat in order to bring the whole of Europe into line?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I agree with the points that have just been made. I think that it would be to the benefit of all of us if we could say with a degree of consistency that if someone cheated in one country he would not get away with it because he was in that country when the impact might be on another country. That seems to me to impose on us both obligations and fairness.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, since, when member state governments and their farmers in one country cheat over agricultural subsidies, the burden is borne principally in this country as we are the principal paymaster, is there any prospect of getting prosecutions of the governments concerned?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am not certain that the governments will be held to account for the misdeeds of particular farmers in relation to agricultural subsidy. What I do know is that in areas where there is defrauding of the European Commission by any part of the community it carries penalties right across Europe—and we probably would be horrified if it did not.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the new rules cover road haulage as one of the polluters? Is he aware that in north Wales recently, the same Irish haulier has been stopped 10 times for disobeying the drivers' hours' regulations, and nothing has been done about it in the Irish Republic? Is it not time that these rules were made fair for everybody?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I suspect that changes in the way hauliers operate may not be a matter for the Foreign Office. Having said that, I can tell noble Lords those areas where the Commission, with the agreement of member states, has accepted that there is a benefit from working together—counterfeiting the euro, non-cash means of payment fraud, money laundering, people trafficking, a tax against IT systems, private sector corruption and maritime pollution. I think all of us would probably agree that most of those kinds of crimes do not conceive of borders as being an impediment to committing them.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, we hear the noble Lord's assurances—

Lord Ackner: My Lords—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross Benches.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, is the answer to the question simply "No"? The European Court of Justice has not issued a judgment agreeing that the European Commission has the power to require. All it has done is to issue a judgment which enables it to make a proposal, which is quite different.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his clarity. I was striving for it, but he has achieved it.

EU: UK Budget Rebate

Lord Howell of Guildford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are their current proposals for the future of the United Kingdom's European Union budgetary rebate.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the Government, as EU presidency, issued their proposals for the next EU financial perspective (2007–2013) on 5 December 2005. We proposed an overall budget of 1.03 per cent GNI, a robust review of the budget during the next financial perspective, an increase in the UK contribution to meet the costs of enlargement, and we have offered two options which are under discussion, but no fundamental change to the abatement mechanism until there is a fundamental reform of the budget.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply; I do not want to overtire him in his work. Why are the British Government negotiating at all, when the French have made it quite clear that they are not prepared to move an inch, or rather I should say a centimetre or perhaps even a millimetre on their side, so no negotiations will involve concessions by them? Secondly, why is government policy that is being pursued now actually alienating our friends in central and eastern Europe? Isn't it understood in the Foreign Office that those countries are our friends in the future European reform? What on earth has possessed the Foreign Office that it should allow such a policy to go forward, with such counterproductive results?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I hope that I shall not appear too tired to your Lordships' House. First, if we had ceased negotiating on every occasion on which the French showed no sign of movement, I fear that the European project would have ground into the sands many years ago. In the run-up to major negotiations, noble Lords far more experienced than I will know, the French sometimes give a little way after a period of what may seem to be Herculean resistance. On the second set of issues, there will be significant movement of funds to the new countries and structural changes in the way that they can use those funds. The compromise proposals that have been put forward will not meet the objective of all of them—a 45 per cent increase in funds—because it is right to point out that the interests of the UK and EU taxpayers must also be put in the equation and weighed in the balance. Perhaps there is some disappointment there, but as the negotiation reaches its conclusion I do not think that it will be overwhelming.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that any reading of the Fontainebleau agreement that gave rise to the United Kingdom rebate would show that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, before getting the rebate, had to agree to a substantial increase in own resources? That had two consequences: one was that we substantially paid for our own rebate, and the second was that that increase in own resources fed the voracious appetite, especially of the French, for the common agricultural policy.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, there is some truth in that. We are now just reaching the position where we will be making a contribution that is broadly comparable with countries of the same size—such as France. It is certainly true that when we started the process, our contribution was twice the size of France's and Italy's. We are now seeing a convergence of the pattern. That is to our benefit.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I have two questions. First, do the British Government agree with the comments made by the British ambassador to Poland about the obduracy of the French? Secondly, is my memory at fault when I suggest that our Prime Minster said that the rebate was non-negotiable unless there was a fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy? Why was that changed?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, to start with the second question, as I said earlier, the position has not changed. There will be no justification for a change in the rebate unless there is a fundamental change in a number of European structures, but most especially in the common agricultural policy. I regret that I shall have to study what the ambassador to Poland said to ensure that I have understood it properly and to see whether it is aligned with the Government's view. I know that ambassadors are always aligned, but I should probably just confirm the fact that he will be on this occasion, so I hope that the House will forgive me if I check the exact words before replying to the noble Lord.

Lord Newby: My Lords—

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is the Liberal Democrats' turn.

Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is particularly unfortunate that the Prime Minister has succeeded simultaneously in annoying our natural allies in eastern Europe and in raising completely false hopes about imposing CAP reform? Does he therefore agree that that raises the prospect, set out by the Commission president in a newspaper interview published today, that Britain runs the risk of being relegated to the periphery of EU decision-making and influence?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I do not agree with the fundamental points made or the conclusion to which they give rise. Had we accepted the Luxembourg presidency's original budget proposal, it would have cost this country vast sums for which there was no justification. The Commission proposals were not much better. We are now talking about a relatively small change, but one that gives the accession countries a fair sum of money and a fair prospect of playing on the same level playing field. I conclude with this: if any Member of your Lordships' House believed that the decision on accession, the strategic decision to make former Communist regime countries into modern economies with decent standards of governance, would cost nothing, he was living in a deluded world.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, did I understand the noble Lord correctly to say that French obstinacy and selfishness were a regular blockage in the way of progress in almost any negotiation? If my understanding is correct, what are the noble Lord and the Government going to do about it?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I think that that is the Agincourt question. I fear that some differences of view have persisted across the history of our two great countries. France will no doubt want to argue its corner as rigorously as it ever did. But I ask the House to accept that, despite those arguments, from Agincourt on, we have generally speaking managed in modern history to find an accommodation. Will the French argue to the last moment? I am sure that they will. Will we succeed on this occasion? I hope so, but as yet, we do not know.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, does my noble friend agree, much as we all want to see a reduction in the common agricultural policy, that that is a separate issue? We are talking about a budget starting in 2007, by which time our GDP will be around £1,400 billion. So a modest payment to help to improve the position in the incoming governments of the enlarged European Union would certainly not be unreasonable.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, we have all made commitments to assist the enlarged Union. From 1990 onwards, well before the accession, considerable sums were committed by governments in the United Kingdom—Conservative as well as Labour—to achieve success. There is a fundamental argument still to be had on the common agricultural policy. Our net contribution between 1995 and 2003 was two and a half times that of France; without the abatement it would have been 15 times as much. The reality is that that system has to go.

Identity Cards Bill

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	Schedule 1 [Information that may be recorded in Register]:
	[Amendment No. 80A not moved.]

Lord Selsdon: moved Amendment No. 80B:
	Page 40, line 6, at end insert "as recorded in his passport, or in the form required for a passport"

Lord Selsdon: I do not want Members of the Committee to feel that I shall be pursuing a trivial pursuit. The only reason that I put down this amendment is to ask the Government for clarification. What is a full name? I would hate to drag the Committee back thousands of years but, in general, we regarded a full name as having three component parts, possibly as did the Romans—the praenomen, which was effectively the given name or later the Christian name; the nomen, which would be the name of the clan; and the cognomen, which would be the family name. Finally, there could be the agnomen, which effectively would be the nickname or some other sort of name.
	Members of the Committee will remember when my noble friend moved an amendment some time ago. We had a rather fourth-form type of debate, which went on for a long time, beginning at 3.30 pm. The Minister, with great humour and charm, tried to diffuse it, although it was not a dangerous situation. But now I return to it and to the subject of logic. Having learnt from the noble Lord, Lord Gould, who monopolised a large part of that debate, that one must undertake some serious economic and social research, I remind the Committee that for many years I was a director of Research Services, which did the biggest social researches in this country. So, taking myself as myself, I have completed over the past week a number of telephone interviews and a number of real interviews. I asked everyone I met: "What is thy name—nomen or nomine? What is your full name? What is your legal name?". Frankly, no one knows.
	The object of my amendment is to return to a relationship between our existing documents and what may be our new documents. I have provided a brief for myself, a copy of which I gave to the Minister a short while ago. I have also written to her, but she has not yet replied. In response to one of two Questions for Written Answer, the Government said:
	"A passport is only issued after an applicant's nationality, status and identity has been confirmed, and is accepted throughout the world as proof of these".—[Official Report, 22/6/04; cols. WA 121-22.]
	Therefore my question is this: is the passport the ultimate proof of identity? If it is, the name in the passport should surely prevail, and any other form of documentation concerned with someone's name should be related to the passport. Perhaps the passport sets out only three or four names, and many noble Lords have been kind enough to point out with good humour that they are not known by their real name. Surprisingly, when people are asked, "What is your full name?", sometimes they give only their first and last names. When asked if the first name is effectively their Christian or given name, some would respond by saying, "Actually, it is not my Christian name because I am no longer a practising Christian".
	The question is not only what is the name, but also in which order should those names be put. I have already explained that I have suffered from being known as "Monsieur Right The" and "Monsieur Croydon Of". More often I have been referred to as just "Monsieur Lord" or even "Doctor Lord". That has caused me difficulties, and to show how important the question is, I handed in my passport in order to get a bus pass. The bus pass, which has my photograph on it, refers to me as "Lord McEacharn". I asked whether it was right to call me by that name. The response was, "On your passport, it is the last name on the second line". I am not trying to be frivolous, but this frivolity could extend to matters quite serious.
	Noble Lords will know that one in 12 of the British population was born overseas. Of that number—in total around 4.9 million or 8.3 per cent—a Home Office document states, perhaps incorrectly, that 53 per cent are white, which assumes that 47 per cent are of other ethnic origins. This includes Bangladeshi, Chinese, Pakistani and Indian. Those noble Lords who understand something of the sub-continents will know that confusion over names can be very real indeed. Therefore the purpose of my amendment is simply to suggest that after "full name", we should insert a form of words that states in effect that the name written in the passport should prevail. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I support my noble friend. He referred to our previous debate on this issue on 23 November on an amendment that I moved. In withdrawing that amendment, I stated that I thought I had opened another can of worms, but I made it clear that I would reflect further before we reached Report. So it would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail on my noble friend's amendment save to say that he has managed to find even a few more worms in the can. I look forward to the Minister's response by letter to my own amendment.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: As the mover of the amendment has said, we had a long and at times amusing debate on this on the previous occasion that we discussed the Bill in Committee. The only point on which I would be grateful to receive an answer is this: if you are someone with several names, all lawfully used, will you be able to choose which is to be the principal name, so to speak; that is, that recorded under paragraph 1(a) rather than paragraph 1(b)?

The Countess of Mar: I will not go into a long discussion about names, but I am half-wondering what will happen if you do not have a passport. Some people never travel abroad and have no need of one.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, for his earlier letter. So intricate were the issues raised that it is taking the researchers some time to respond to it in full. The second letter was handed to me only as I took my seat, but the noble Lord has explained his amendment so fully that it will serve only as elucidation. I also thank him for that.
	Although I understand its probing nature, the amendment is not necessary. The Passport Service conforms to the International Civil Aviation Organisation—ICAO—regulations when formatting names in a passport, as it has to ensure that it is a valid travel document. It is our intention that identity cards will follow the same convention. Identity cards will be issued to British nationals and they will also be valid for travel. Indeed, if UK passports are designated under Clause 4, as currently anticipated, passports and identity cards will be issued as part of the same process and on the basis of a single application form. It would not be possible to request a passport in one name and an identity card in another. Thus the principle behind the amendment is already accounted for in our current planning.
	However, we do not wish to place any unnecessary restrictions in the Bill. Should other documents be designated under the Bill it may be neither convenient nor appropriate to restrict the formatting of names to the manner used in the passport. In consideration of these points, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, is satisfied.
	In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, about which name will be proposed, I can say that the system will follow very much the same lines. Because the identity card is a travel document, the name used will have to comply with the ICAO criteria. I understand what the noble Countess said about not everyone having a passport, but 80 per cent of the population do. We currently comply with the regulations and that does not appear to have caused any difficulties.
	Names are fully explained in the appendix to the letter that I sent from my private office to all noble Lords last Friday, 9 December. In that letter I have tried to go through many of the points which were of concern to noble Lords, but I am sure not everyone will have had an opportunity to read it in detail. Somewhat unusually, it contains about 30 pages, so I know that it is comprehensive. It is available in e-mail. I can certainly e-mail it again or provide hard copy if anyone does not have it, but, as this Committee will go on for a little time and we will have the opportunity to enjoy ourselves even further on Wednesday, I am sure that some of the issues I raise in the letter will come up then.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: That was a very interesting reply. Does the Minister's department intend to carry over the decision about using the passport format for the name on the register to the registration of births, deaths and marriages? If it does not do so, there will be some confusion.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: There has been no difficulty in reconciling the registration of the names that we have on the births, deaths and marriages register with the passport office throughout the whole period that we have been operating the system. The noble Baroness will know that birth certificates, marriage certificates and other documents are quite often produced in order to obtain a passport. We do not seem to have had any difficulty reconciling those two and we anticipate the same will be true in the future.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am slightly confused—I am sure it is my fault—and I wonder whether the noble Baroness can clarify the position. I thought she said that the identity card would do for travel everywhere. In that case, why would anyone who holds an identity card need a passport? Perhaps they will not.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The identity card will be available for those who wish to travel in Europe. One will not need a passport to travel to any EU country but you will need a passport for other international travel—to America, New Zealand, Australia or anywhere outside the EU. The identity card will be very convenient. Noble Lords will know that many mainland European nationals use their identity cards to travel within the EU area. Our system of identity card will have the same facility. The noble Lord will remember that it is proposed that the identity card should cost about £30, which is a great deal cheaper than a passport. For those who tend not to travel outside the EU, that may be a considerable advantage.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The noble Baroness referred to a 30-page letter which elucidates some of the knotty problems we are contending with. I have not received a copy and I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has not either. Would it facilitate our proceedings this afternoon and this evening if we had copies? We do not want to labour points that are adequately dealt with in the letter.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I think that the letter was both posted and e-mailed, but I am more than happy to ask my officials to get a couple of copies if noble Lords will indicate how many are needed. I do not want to say, "Put your hand up if you want one". I will ask my officials to get a body of copies which can be passed around the Chamber, if that would be helpful.

Lord Selsdon: I am most grateful to the Minister. I give her warning that my supplementary amendment at the very end of the Bill will be full and meaningful. Some 80 per cent of people over the age of 16 have passports, and most of those who do not—more than half of pensioners do not—probably have no intention of travelling. We have moved to a society in which the passport is particularly important.
	On the question of identity relating to passports, there are several sorts of identity card but almost all the EEA countries now issue an identity card on which you can travel. To make sure, in my research, that this was viable, I tested this at Heathrow, Luton and Gatwick. The immigration officers found it acceptable and, surprisingly enough, thought that my identity card, which I had copied from my passport, would be perfectly acceptable for travel around those countries.
	The final point lies not in the Government's need to collect information for themselves but in making it easy for the citizen to prove his identity. Those whom the noble Lord, Lord Gould, referred to as being so enthusiastic about the idea of having a passport have not fully appreciated the amount of information to be contained on the register. Members of the Committee will appreciate that in 2003, 8,000 fraudulent travel documents were seized upon entry into the United Kingdom, which must be only a small percentage of those held by all who are here illegally. In the note I gave the noble Baroness, I used some of the Home Office figures to show the estimates of how many illegal or semi-legal people there were in the United Kingdom. I give her a gentle warning: perhaps as the Bill progresses, and on Wednesday, she might be able to produce some estimates that are more reliable than those made to date of numbers of people who are illegally in the United Kingdom and who do not have a passport or any acceptable proof of identity.
	Finally, I refer back to Gaius Julius Caesar, who had two other names: Octavius, which meant he was the eighth in line—I am only the third or the fourth, I cannot remember which—and Augustus, which meant "holy" or "chosen". Since this is such an august moment, the Minister will appreciate that it would be helpful if there were some definition of what each name should be called, whether or not it is on the identity card. I still prefer the concept of Christian name, middle name and surname. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 81 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	[Amendments Nos. 82 to 84 not moved.]
	[Amendments Nos. 84A to 85 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

The Earl of Northesk: moved Amendment No. 86:
	Page 40, line 17, after "a" insert "full-face"

The Earl of Northesk: Taken literally, the drafting of sub-paragraph (a) could just as easily refer to a photograph of the back of an individual's head and shoulders rather than the front. Clearly, this would not be conducive to obtaining a viable facial biometric. The amendment seeks to deal with that point.
	There is also the subsidiary issue of whether, in technological terms, a full-face or other form of digitised facial biometric should be used. For example, I have it in mind that the United States favours quarter-face images. That said, I can accept that this level of detail is probably best left to subordinate legislation. Nevertheless, with that in mind, I suspect that Amendments Nos. 87 and 113, in the names of my noble friends Lady Anelay and Lady Seccombe, are more appropriate. I beg to move.

Baroness Seccombe: As my noble friend Lord Northesk highlighted, the term "head" does not constitute "face". It could just as easily be a picture of the back of the head and shoulders and that would do little to help identify an individual. It would be useful only if there were a permanent, defining feature such as a tattoo, but even those can be removed these days or simply covered up. As such, Amendment No. 87 would replace the word "head" with "face" to ensure that the individuals in question would actually have to show their faces.
	Amendment No. 113 would continue this terminology change in Clause 5 (5) (c) so that it would read,
	"to allow his face to be photographed",
	rather than,
	"to allow himself to be photographed".
	This consequential amendment would also help narrow what the requirement in Clause 5 (5) allows an individual to do in that it will ensure that the face is photographed but would limit photographs of the rest of the body.
	As my honourable friend the Member for Harborough highlighted in Committee in another place:
	"I do not want to make a flippant point, but the provision does not say 'a photograph of his face' . . . I know what the Government intend, but that is not what is in the schedule, so I can imagine that all sorts of fun will be had by a clever fellow".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D; 7/7/05; col. 139.]
	However, Her Majesty's Government did not make this slight but all-important drafting change at the time. Will the Minister outline why they did not make that change? Will they consider it now that the Bill is in Committee in this House?
	While we are discussing the issue of facial measurements, I will touch briefly on the fallibility of biometric technology. As mentioned at Second Reading, it is estimated that one in six people would not be able to get ID cards because their biometric data may not be properly recordable on the card's implanted chip. Trials have demonstrated that the biometrics of black, elderly and disabled people have a higher chance of being incorrectly matched despite claims made by the Minister at Second Reading that the technology is improving all the time. Those noble Lords who were here at Second Reading will remember the personal experience of my noble friend Lady Anelay.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell of Markyate, highlighted during Second Reading that facial characteristics require an update for everyone approximately every five years. The effect of age, as we in this House know, is unfortunately not something that can be held back. Will Her Majesty's Government clarify whether they will be covering the cost of these essential updates for facial biometrics? What is the process should someone have plastic surgery to their face? Is the onus on them to let the system know? Do they have to provide a doctor's certificate to show that it has happened? What would happen after an accident resulting in a broken nose or jaw that would alter the facial measurements but not be the fault of the individual? Is the onus, once again on them, at a potentially difficult time, to inform the registrar of the change and arrange to have new photos? Will these costs be personal if it is through no fault of his or her own? Within how many days would they have to present themselves for the updated information? We started this debate on a light note, but there are important practical arrangements that need to be addressed—ones that I am not convinced Her Majesty's Government have thought through properly.

Lord Selsdon: I refer the Minister to the response to a Question for a Written Answer on 16 March 2005, at col. 316W of Hansard for the House of Commons. Mr Weir asked, on biometric data, whether the Government would,
	"list the identifiers that will be held digitally on the chip in the ePassport".
	The response was:
	"In compliance with ICAO requirements, the chip will hold a facial image of the passport holder. This facial image will be derived from the applicant's photo submitted at time of application and will be stored in accordance with ICAO and ISO standards.
	Additional information will include that which is currently shown on the personal details page of the passport, namely name, nationality, date of birth, sex, place of birth, date of issue/expiry and passport number".
	I raise that because I believe that there will be problems with identity.
	The Minister was kind and charming enough to draw attention to the fact that her lovely brown eyes would be easily recognised. I should advise her that a smart Christmas gift at the moment is soft contact lenses in different colours, enabling you to change your eyes to green, blue, or to almost every colour except for red. I have a feeling that the technology may not be up with the ambition, and I return once again to the importance of the relationship between the passport and the identity card.

Lord Crickhowell: The Minister will probably say that the Government are aiming to work on a combination of different identifications, but that still raises the issue as to what happens if someone fails to qualify under any one of them and is therefore rejected. I have in front of me the report of the ID technology advisory group, which reported to EURIM and gave on the whole an encouraging report on what the Government are attempting. But on this subject, the group pointed out:
	"Facial recognition is rated as 'Medium-Low' stability. Depending on the type of facial recognition employed, a system may be better able to cope with the ongoing facial changes we experience over a lifetime.
	The human face is subject to change due to a whole variety of reasons, such as ageing, skin tone, religious attire, illness, wearing glasses, facial hair and expression, all of which in terms of access control could cause 'nuisance' problems and could require either a database with several images of the same subject and/or a regularly updated file image.
	Lighting levels, weather conditions, angle of image and degree of subject co-operation will also have an effect on the performance of the biometric system".
	That is the view of what is probably one of the most highly qualified groups of technologists that has given advice. My concern is not so much that we won't have a system that, if taken together, will satisfactorily identify people; my concern is that if one item of your image sends up a negative on the screen, you will be in the most awful trouble. So in view of that technical assessment of the facial identification, how do the Government propose to overcome the problem?

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: If the Minister is inclined to be sympathetic towards this group of amendments, will she also be inclined to be sympathetic towards a curtailment of the provisions of Clause 1, and in particular subsection (7)? Schedule 1 falls within the ambit of Clause 1, but that clause allows a far wider collection of physical characteristics than merely face or shoulders. It allows the capture of any,
	"physical characteristics . . . that are capable of being used for"
	identification. Would the Minister refer to that, because these amendments do not go half way towards the concerns expressed by the movers?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble Lord referred to Clause 1(7). Does he mean Clause 1(6)(e)?

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: No, I mean Clause 1(7)(e), which refers to physical characteristics.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I regret to tell the Committee that I have an old copy of the Bill—I do not know how it got in there.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: But we have had this copy for the past two months.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: That is why I cannot understand how it got in there. It was not there on Friday.
	I will deal with some of the issues on biometrics first and then I will go back. I hope that I will be able to give the noble Baroness comfort on the difficulty about which she concerns herself.
	The use of biometrics must be seen in the context of a wide range of measures that will be taken to secure the integrity of the enrolment process on the national identity register. Additionally, in taking biometrics application data, data will be verified through checks on public and private databases. Supporting documentation will be scrutinised and the personal interviews will be conducted to establish an individual's identity. That is the background in which the biometrics will be taken. In addition to all these steps, we have the additional protection of verifying a person's biometrics against previously enrolled identities. The use of multiple identifiers—that is, fingerprints, iris and photos—will provide extra protection against fraud by enhancing the ability to check against previously enrolled identities and also ensuring that biometrics are captured for anyone who would have difficulties with a single biometric. So the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, rightly foreshadowed the response that I am making on that point.
	Therefore, when we look at the data that we now have, there are some indicators that should give us comfort. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, said that there were difficulties in one in six instances. I think I can comfort her by saying that that is not in fact correct—it is not correct that one in six could not participate in the ID card scheme due to an inability to record biometrics. The UK Passport Service trial showed that at least 99.954 per cent of the participants could enrol at least one biometric. So there was not a difficulty there.
	As for the issue which the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, raised on coloured contact lenses, such lenses would be noticeable to a trained supervisor at biometric recording and the individual would be requested to remove them. Normal contact lenses will not cause problems for enrolment; but the clever contact lenses that change colour do, and therefore they can be detectable. In the letter of 9 December, which I regret not everyone has a copy of, I dealt with many of these issues in the annexe. The Committee will find that, in Annexe B, I tried to answer a range of questions on biometrics because I knew that a number of noble Lords had raised them. It will be up to an individual—to answer the second question of the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe—to decide whether the photograph on their ID card needs to be updated because their appearance has changed. Just as now, many people quite like to hang on to the old photograph for the 10 years for reasons that seem to me absolutely reasonable. Others may like to change them a little earlier.
	Clause 1(7)(e) does not cover any physical characteristics, only those that are capable of being used for identifying the person. So, for example, illnesses could not be recorded under this paragraph. That is one of the issues addressed in the letter to which I referred. Again, I am sorry if not all noble Lords have had an opportunity to read it.
	Perhaps we can now come back to the question raised by the noble Baroness about how the clause is phrased, and indeed the concern raised by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, that the back of the head could be taken as opposed to the face. As these photographs will be taken by staff of the agency, I am not convinced that the problem will arise in practice: I would hope that those who undertake these tests would actually be able to recognise the back of the head as opposed to the front of the head. There is also the question of the reference—whether, if you have the face alone, someone will say that the hair is or is not included.
	I am more than prepared to look at the wording with a view to aligning the phrase used with that which appears in the UK Passport Service standard for passport photographs, which refers to head, face and shoulders. I hope to return by Report with something to allay the anxieties that have been expressed, but I reassure the Committee that I do not think in practice there will be much difficulty in identifying the facial features to appear on the photograph.

Lord Crickhowell: The noble Baroness, as usual, gave a very helpful reply and there may be even more detail in the lengthy document which we have not yet seen. I pursue one aspect of the matter. The noble Baroness took up the point I had anticipated—that we would take all these identification features together. But I do not think she completely answered my point about what I think are termed "false rejects". The report from which I have already quoted points out:
	"Where the threshold is set depends upon the situation in which we are using the biometric technology".
	Obviously, if we are dealing with access to a country, we want to set a very high standard and therefore we do not mind if there are false rejects, even if they cause inconvenience. But very often we will be dealing with situations where convenience will be much more important and we will not want a lot of false rejects. Is it the Government's intention to have a range of operational factors available to give guidelines? Have they worked out how they are going to deal with the problem of false rejects and set a variety of standards?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. The Committee will have seen that the ability to enhance accuracy has been developed quickly, and we shall continue to hone that. We have more time between the passing of the legislation and the implementation of the measure. I invite the Committee to record that when biometric passports are introduced next year they will primarily use the facial imaging and we will have to continue to hone that. I assure the Committee that we shall try to set the standard so that it can capture the best possible data in relation to biometrics as regards digital, iris and facial. I am pleased that our ability to do that is being enhanced all the time.
	I think that copies of my letter have now been given to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. Twenty-four copies have been left in the Printed Paper Office for any other noble Lord who may wish to acquire one.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am trying to help the Committee and the noble Baroness. This is a long, detailed, carefully considered letter of 30 pages, as the noble Baroness says. Is it possible to have a 10-minute break while we read it? Frankly, trying to make sense of this on the hoof when dealing with amendments makes life extremely difficult. But I am entirely at the mercy of the Committee.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am very sympathetic to the noble Lord, but I hope that the further information arises out of the issues discussed in our previous debate in Committee. I invite the Committee to press on. If I may respectfully say so, bearing in mind the speed with which we dealt with amendments on the previous occasion and the number of amendments we have to deal with now, I think that we will have sufficient time. I will try to be as clear as I can. If parts of the letter will assist the Committee, I will certainly point those out as we go along, but it is really a case of answering questions that were raised on the previous occasion—some of them will be for another day, but it would be a good idea if we pressed on.

Lord Selsdon: I want to try to help the noble Baroness, as I always have done on this. I commend to the Committee Appendix B of her report, paragraph 17 to the end. It is a pity that my quotation comes at the end and it is a pity that we have not had a chance to read it before. I had the advantage of having it delivered to me expressly. The first page of the report I opened states:
	"Can biometrics be forged or 'spoofed'? Studies have shown that biometrics can be 'spoofed' to fool a biometric reader".
	That was all that I had time to read in detail, but I commend to the Committee and to everyone the initiative that the noble Baroness has taken. It is a pity that her department could not be a little quicker on its feet.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble Lord for that. I also thank those officials who have worked so hard on these documents. We tried to get them out as quickly as we could; it was difficult to get them out by Friday. Everyone was e-mailed and everyone had a hard copy sent to them. About 70 copies went out to named Members of the House who had participated previously. I assure noble Lords that we did everything in our power to make sure that the information got to noble Lords as quickly as it could. I apologise if, notwithstanding all our efforts, we failed.

The Earl of Onslow: I suggest to the Commiteee that if we did have 10 minutes off it would probably save considerably more than 10 minutes of us being corrected because we had not read the document or the noble Baroness having to explain things in greater detail; I would certainly like to have 10 minutes. I concede that my presence in the Chamber or absence therefrom for 10 minutes will not make a single difference to the great strategic flow of statutory rivers that we go through, but it would be quite helpful to take up the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.

Lord Williams of Elvel: I got a copy of the letter sent by the noble Baroness, and she has done everything possible to illuminate the discussions at a previous stage in Committee. This is the first time in Committees of this House that I have had a Minister spell out exactly what the responses were in Committee at an earlier stage. I do not believe that we should go on and on and round about on this. I hope very much that the Committee will resist the idea of going into a 10-minute break, because it will not help the Earl of Onslow.

The Earl of Northesk: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It is perhaps inevitable that it was a vast discussion about the reliability of biometrics, although I was merely trying to concentrate on the narrow, practical issue. In that regard, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for her kind suggestion that she may consider the passport criteria as the means to resolve the problem. I have been taught to believe that precision in statute is extremely important, and I continue to be concerned that the Bill says only "head and shoulders". Some refusenik might arrive to have his biometric captured and sit with his back to the capture machine, which would be a complete waste of everyone's time. I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, and I am content to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
	[Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

The Earl of Northesk: moved Amendment No. 90:
	Page 40, line 19, leave out paragraph (c).

The Earl of Northesk: In moving Amendment No. 90, with the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 110 and 171. Amendment No. 90 proposes the deletion of Schedule 1(2)(c). In the context of the scheme, an individual's fingerprints will merely be another digitised biometric, essentially of the same character as those for iris or facial recognition. Therefore, to identify them separately is otiose. My other two amendments, to Clauses 5 and 12 respectively, have the same objective.
	Moreover, there is no indication in the Bill precisely what form of fingerprints it is envisaged will be used. Clause 43 defines fingerprint as:
	"in relation to an individual . . . a record (in any form and produced by any method) of the skin pattern and other physical characteristics or features of any of his fingers".
	The Minister will recall that in response to a Starred Question that I asked about the UK prison estate she alluded to a number of different mixes of biometrics used in that context, including "hand geometry". Any one of a number of routes could be adopted for fingerprints in respect of the scheme, but the Bill is silent on the matter. Will the requirement be limited to a single digit or applied to all 10? Perhaps the Home Office is contemplating full palm prints; presumably that is the same as hand geometry and consistent with criminal fingerprint legislation.
	Moreover, as my noble and learned friend Lord Lyell of Markyate made plain at Second Reading, a distinction has to be made between an analogue and a digitised system. All these factors are linked inextricably to the eventual cost and reliability of the scheme. That in turn means that the form of fingerprint or fingerprints—in fact, the whole range of biometric identifiers to be used in the scheme—should be stated explicitly in the Bill rather than being left to subordinate legislation.
	Having said all that, of course I recognise that throughout our debates the Minister has consistently referred to a total of 13 biometric identifiers. This suggests that the Government have already made up their collective mind about the appropriate way forward on the matter. That being so, there is no practical reason why the detail cannot be written into the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: I should point out that if this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 90A.

Baroness Seccombe: I welcome this group of amendments as it enables us to discuss the ins and outs of fingerprinting and fingerprint data and, indeed, what the Government intend to include under the auspices of "other biometric information". I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 90A and 111.
	The question of why the UK is going for such an elaborate biometric database deserves the deepest probing during the passage of the Bill. Air travel regulations do not require nation states to collect 13 biometric details, as is often loosely stated by supporters of the national identity register. Indeed, those regulations have specifically recognised that many nation states do not want to emulate the British requirement and, in some cases, would not be permitted to do so. German privacy laws, for example, forbid the creation of a national biometric database, and for that reason their biometric system has been set up to exclude the kind of audit trail that the Government here want to impose on us.
	The German system includes two index fingerprints. There was strong resistance to the idea in Germany. Indeed, it was reported in the Financial Times that there was a stampede by German citizens to secure old-style passports before the new ones came in because of opposition to national registration. I have to say that the German authorities were more open and honest than ours. Here, the public have still not been told what is proposed for passport registration from the end of next year. I have yet to meet any person not involved in this debate who is aware that to have the right to leave our country a UK citizen without a passport or whose passport has lapsed will have to go to an interrogation centre, be questioned and fingerprinted, secretly registered and given a number—and, of course, pay for that privilege.
	The Government do not like it when the London School of Economics report is mentioned, but perhaps the Minister should go away and read it again. She will find a devastating accumulation of evidence showing that the UK fingerprint requirement goes beyond what is being sought or permitted in most other countries. The only reason for such an elaborate database can be for the internal control of United Kingdom citizens.
	It is also argued that EU regulations would require the taking and storing of these biometric details. It used to be said that that was necessary to comply with US standards. That is not true. The US immigration authorities do not require full palm prints or prints of all 10 digits; nor are they planning that. Once again, over-specification can be construed only as part of a UK or EU project to compile databases on UK and EU citizens.
	The United States is upgrading its immigration facilities following the Patriot Act, but if you go to a state-of-the-art facility, such as the giant facility at Houston Airport, which opened recently, you will find that visitors are photographed. They are even asked for a fingerprint, but only of the index finger of each hand. There is no question of trying to take a print of every finger, as the Government wish.
	After long flights, most people suffer substantial dehydration, and it is difficult for the readers to take a print in such circumstances. Wet pads are available for visitors to moisten their fingers, but they sometimes have to repeat three or four times the attempt to read each print. Imagine that being replicated 10 times over. Imagine the unnecessary delays. Imagine the extra costs involved in developing the technology to store and check the prints. Image the extra complexity and cost of the readers that would be required by police, immigration authorities, doctors, hospitals, social security offices and all those that the Government want to embrace within the system. The whole thing is potentially an elaborate folly and a disaster in the making that is not justified by any international standard or requirement by other nations. It is simply a luxury tool for our Government.
	I hope, therefore, that if the Government persist with this scheme they will accept this limiting amendment and curb their ambitions—and so curb costs. If they do not do so, the Committee will need a very good explanation by the noble Baroness as to why the UK is gold-plating in this way and a clear statement of the costs involved.

The Earl of Onslow: This shows something unhealthy about the Government's attitude to individual liberty. It does not seem to have entered their heads that to lock up all the details of every subject of Her Majesty in a computer for future use is deeply offensive to our traditional liberties. It may be that it is becoming unfashionable to go on talking about such matters. The noble Baroness obviously wishes to talk to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, while I am speaking and she is entitled to do that, but it is—

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: No; I have a wonderful capacity to listen with one ear while speaking, particularly when it is a matter dear to the noble Earl's heart. I would never dream of missing one word that dropped from his lips.

The Earl of Onslow: I shall hold the noble Baroness to that promise. Paragraph (c) shows a deep failing in the Government's psyche. Those of us who care passionately about such liberties and who believe that the Government are there for us, not the other way round, believe that they are there to say, "You may do anything you like, except what we tell you not to". These are very old and dear liberties that we must fight and fight and fight for. Paragraph (c), which means that absolutely everything is put on the wretched register, is a perfect example of what we should resist.

The Countess of Mar: I, too, support the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, in their amendments. I spoke at some length at the first Second Reading, prior to the general election, and I am sorry that I did not speak at the second Second Reading. I feel very strongly about this. It is gold-plating on top of gold-plating and is not necessary.

Lord Selsdon: I have nothing at all against fingerprints. In fact I keep a set of my own, so that if there were any robberies, I could be eliminated as a potential criminal. My fingerprints are on some of my travel cards, so that I can obtain certain benefits when I arrive by shoving my finger in a slot and typing in the details of the aircraft I am travelling on.
	I have tremendous sympathy with my noble friend Lady Seccombe—and there has been no collusion between us—on the subject of Germany, on which I intended to intervene. I go there regularly and the social democrat party is very much opposed to such moves because they do not want Germany returning to a police state. Those are not my words. All parties in Germany agree with that, because they have a pathological fear of the rise of the dominant centre.
	Two fingers is all right—I am sorry I should not have said that, but their use came from the battle of Agincourt and it depends which way round you put them. It is worrying that the use of fingerprints should be deemed so important. I still prefer the original requirement to register identifying marks such as a mole or, more likely today, a tattoo—although that would occupy many pages—on a passport. There was a discreet method whereby if someone lost a finger or something, that disability would be politely and quietly noted.
	As Members of the Committee know, many people, including children, lose the tops of their fingers, so I wonder what would happen if on their arrival in the United States or the United Arab Emirates—the noble Baroness seems to think that those are the two most important biometrics centres in the world—it was found that they were missing a finger. I support the amendment. I do not believe that we should make too much fuss about it, but it is so logical, sensible and gentlemanly.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Mine is the final amendment in the group and concerns biometric information. I confess that I have a non-scientist's anxiety about biometric information. I also confess that I share the broader sentiments of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and many others in the Committee who have expressed a general unease about the creation of what will be, in world terms, a uniquely powerful, centralised state database. I would be most grateful if the noble Baroness could assuage my concerns, although I do not expect her to do so now.
	First, we all accept that Clause 1 is the determining clause as regards the information that can be captured under Schedule 1. Schedule 1 has to be read as being, in all respects, circumscribed by the provisions of Clause 1. There arises my problem, in that Clause 1 makes no reference whatever to biometric information, whereas the schedule does in paragraph 2. Furthermore, biometric information is defined in Clause 43 as data about the external characteristics of an individual,
	"including, in particular, the features of an iris".
	I am not a scientist, a biologist or any other "ologist", but in my terms the iris is not an external feature but one that lies behind the surface. It is not, in common parlance, external. The noble Baroness may say that that is why we have specifically mentioned the iris in the definition in Clause 43, but it says "including", and ambiguity is created by including what is not an external feature in a definition of external characteristics.
	Secondly, in Clause 1—the key clause—subsection (7)(e) refers to physical characteristics capable of being used for identifying an individual. That is much wider, as I am sure the noble Baroness will agree, than biometric information as defined by Clause 43; for example, it does not say "external physical characteristics". If one wanted to be a literalist, it could include internal physical characteristics; that is to say, characteristics available only through X-ray determination or through the sampling of body fluids.
	I have tabled Amendment No. 183 to ask the noble Baroness whether on Report we might consider tightening up the linkage between Clause 1(7)(e), Schedule 1(2) and Clause 43, not forgetting that in Clause 3(5) the Secretary of State can modify the information that can be collected under Schedule 1 by an affirmative resolution passed in this and the other place. If I am right in thinking that "physical characteristics" in Clause 1(7) is a much wider provision than is contained in Schedule 1 vis-à-vis biometric information, Clause 3(5) could be used to enlarge considerably the scope of information beyond that envisaged. I apologise for that circumlocutory and complex attempt to explain my concern. I do not expect the noble Baroness to deal with it on the hoof, but it is the basis for my amendment.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I want to return briefly to fingerprints. The sound of the word "fingerprints" produces an unpleasant note of possible criminal behaviour and the rest. I want to ask two simple questions. First, who will benefit from the inclusion of fingerprints on the identity card; and, secondly, of what possible use will that inclusion be to the owner of the fingerprints? Even enthusiasts for this Bill, such as the noble Lord, Lord Gould, would hardly claim that a fingerprint was a badge of honour to be boasted about. It is nothing of the kind. The Bill has done much to reawaken my suspicion of the Government's appetite for information. It seems completely beyond the reach of satisfaction. I hope that the Minister will be able to convince us that the Government have good grounds for including this requirement.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that we have good grounds for including it. The whole point of using biometrics is so that we can accurately identify the individual who is to be named either in the passport or in the identity card. It is important that we get that right.
	In debating the previous clause, we spoke about biometrics and I emphasised the background against which the data will be taken. The biometric data will be used as a confirmation of the other details that will be taken when the person is interviewed to ensure that they are who they say they are. That will then be securely recorded so that thereafter that identity cannot be stolen or taken away.
	Ten fingerprints are needed to facilitate a unique record—that is, one of many—because a check that aims to ensure multiple enrolments will not occur. Two fingerprints are not sufficient for this purpose. The US-VISIT system is expected to move to more than two fingerprints as the size of its database increases. Already the benefits of taking 10 fingerprints is greatly appreciated and taken on board. It is not therefore right that the US will stick to two fingerprints, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, may have been told. In framing the new system, we must therefore look at the best available knowledge and data and anticipate it so that we can ensure that our system has the integrity we will need.
	I turn to the individual amendments. Amendment No. 183 would prevent biometrics, other than fingerprints, being confirmed on a check with consent under Clause 14. Biometric information cannot be provided from the register under that power. Subsection (2)(g) limits the information to confirmation that the biometric information provided coincides with the information on the register. As I say, take the other details and the biometrics will confirm the identity.
	Amendments Nos. 90, 110 and 171 would completely remove the reference to fingerprints. Fingerprints are a type of biometric information, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, finds them slightly uncomfortable because they have previously been associated with criminal activity and a way of identifying a person. However, they are important because they are a way of accurately identifying people. The noble Lord is right to say that technically we need not have mentioned them separately, but the Bill specifically mentions fingerprints, iris recognition and photographs, to make our present intentions clear.
	The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, made a point on the inclusion of irises as external characteristics. All the physical characteristics specified in the Bill can be viewed externally. One can see the iris by external observation. We have made clear that physical characteristics are external characteristics because the Bill does not include any internal element or organ that would have to be examined by use of an X-ray or anything of that sort. It is only what can be observed externally. The combination of Clauses 1(7) and 43 and the schedule makes that clear. The noble Lord will remember that, at one stage in the other place, there was concern about whether we were limiting the characteristics to biometrics and external features, or whether DNA would be included. We wanted to make absolutely clear that it was external identifiers only. That was the reason for the combination of Clauses 1 and 43 and the schedule.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My concern is that Clause 1(7)(e), which deals with physical characteristics, is unqualified by reference to externality. Therefore, one could, in theory, use the provision under Clause 3(5) to include internal physical characteristics or X-ray information in Schedule 1.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I do not think one could, because Clause 43(1), which gives the definition of biometric information, constrains the general interpretation to be applied:
	"'biometric information', in relation to an individual, means data about his external characteristics, including, in particular, the features of an iris or any other part of the eye".

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: That does not meet my concern because Clause 43 deals with the definition of biometric information and that term occurs only in Schedule 1; there is no reference to it in Clause 1. I maintain that "physical characteristics" in Clause 1 is not confined by the biometric definition in Clause 43. Perhaps this is an argument that should not be perpetuated at this moment, but if, on reflection, the Minister agrees with me, will she consider an amendment to Clause 1 to make clear that the argument she is now advancing is the one intended?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I will certainly look at it, but I do not think that it is a difficulty. I am relatively sure that parliamentary counsel will tell me that the three elements have to be read together and, therefore, the position is absolutely clear. I am more than happy to consider this because I am clear that the Government intend that only external characteristics are required and we believe that that is delivered by the Bill. We will look again to ensure that that is the proper construction and, if any further clarity is needed, I shall be happy to look at it. I do not think that there is any difficulty, but I understand the noble Lord's concern.
	Amendments Nos. 90, 110 and 117 deal with fingerprint issues. Fingerprint evidence was first used in court to convict an offender as long ago as 1902, more than 100 years ago—a date which I am sure will please the noble Earl. To reiterate, it is intended that we will capture the 13 biometrics—that is the 10 fingerprints, the two irises and the face. Amendments Nos. 90A and 111 would limit any fingerprint biometric recorded on the national identity register and on application to index fingers only. A scheme the size of the United Kingdom ID card scheme would not have a high likelihood of success if only two fingers were used. More are required to differentiate between people with the degree of confidence we require when a large population is involved.
	I think we have already dealt with the issues regarding the EU and the ICAO requirements. They are, as the Committee will know, minimum common standards. The introduction of these requirements and the introduction of initiatives, such as the US-visit project, may be initial drivers for the identity card scheme, but, as I tried to indicate earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, we are trying to find the best model we can to ensure that it has the longest lifespan and the greatest degree of accuracy. Therefore, we are looking now to find that. We wish to approach it with our 13 biometric identifiers because that is the best information we have at the moment.
	I hope that with those responses noble Lords will feel reassured and that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

The Earl of Northesk: Once again I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed. As with my previous amendment, it is an issue that sparks a great deal of concern. Indeed, I share the concern about how it could be said that the Government are gold-plating agreed international standards in this area. Many of us would prefer that fewer biometric identifiers were being considered for the scheme. But, in terms, my judgment is that there is consensus that all the biometric identifiers to be used by the scheme should be stated explicitly in the Bill.
	That tempts me to believe that paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 would merit amendment on Report to constrain it absolutely to those biometric identifiers that the Minister has indicated represent the Government's best thinking at present—that is to say, fingerprints, iris and face. Other noble Lords might prefer to go even further than that. Without doubt, we will have to return to this issue on Report, but, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 90A and 91 not moved.]

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 92:
	Page 40, line 30, at end insert "and his ID card number, which shall be the same"

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: In moving Amendment No. 92 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 93 to 96. It may be appropriate for me to make a brief reference to the 30-page letter that the Minister was kind enough to send to noble Lords.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I need to clarify something I said earlier. I had asked for the letter to be e-mailed and sent. I understand that it was sent but, through an oversight, it was not e-mailed. I am very sorry about that because my instructions were very clear. I know that noble Lords find that an easy way to receive information, particularly the noble Baroness. That is why I was disappointed that all noble Lords had not received it. I apologise because I would not like to mislead the Committee. I asked for it to be done that way, but I have discovered that it was not. I add my additional apology as a result.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: All noble Lords present would say that we never expect the noble Baroness to mislead the House because she does not do so: she always treats us with great courtesy. She has given an apology that I did not seek. I was going to say that I have now had the opportunity to speed-read that letter. I note that there is a substantial section on costs, which I think will appropriately be dealt with when we reach Amendment No. 259A, so we will have time in the next two days properly to consider that information. I notice that there are issues in the letter regarding the biometrics. Of course I appreciate that we will return to those specific issues on Report. I cannot at first sight see issues raised in the letter that need to be dealt with today by way of an adjournment. But having done only a speed read, I could be proved completely wrong. I hope not.
	Amendments Nos. 92 to 95A refer to paragraph 4 of Schedule 1, which gives the Government the power to require that personal reference numbers should be entered into the national identity register. Amendment No. 96 is grouped with them because it also covers the question of numbers. This is a continuation of our quest to find out what will be behind this skeleton Bill. Amendments Nos. 92, 93, 95 and 96 were tabled in another place and were called to be debated in Committee on 12 July. It is not my normal practice to retable amendments from the Commons when I feel that they have been debated and answered, but unfortunately, not only did the Minister, Mr McNulty, decide not to respond to them, he made it absolutely clear that he would not. He said:
	"Let me deal first with the lead amendment. I will then address some of, but not all, the subsequent amendments".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D, 12/7/05; col. 160.]
	That is a red rag to a bull; I had to table the amendments to ask the Government for the answer.
	Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 make it clear that the ID card number should be the same as the national identity registration number. Why should they be different? Amendment No. 94 is an odd one out; it is new to this House. It would remove the subsection that records the number of any document that can be used instead of a passport. Which documents do the Government mean? Are they documents to use for travel purposes? Would that be within the UK? I am aware that some budget airlines are now imposing restrictions on customers and requiring the production of identity for domestic travel. As I understand it, that is not so much for security reasons as for a simple commercial reason. They want to prevent their customers passing on their tickets for others' use, thus avoiding the payment of an administration fee to the airline for a change of name. I do not say whether they are right or wrong; I just noticed that that is the practice that they are adopting.
	Are the documents in subsection (g) those that may only be used when a passport is required or are they documents that we may choose to use, such as a utility bill, when we are not required to produce a passport but find it convenient to show the bill as proof of the reason for inquiry? Amendment No. 95 returns to the unanswered amendments in another place and would delete paragraph 4(1)(l), which deals with personal reference numbers. It refers to,
	"the number of any designated document which is held by him and is a document the number of which does not fall within any of the preceding sub-paragraphs".
	I am not exactly clear, but I assume that that implies that we will end up with dozens upon dozens of numbers recorded against our name. What kind of numbers do the Government have in mind to be covered by the sub-paragraph?
	Amendment No. 96 is another unanswered amendment. It removes sub-paragraph (g) from paragraph 6, which covers one's history of making applications and the changes that are made to one's national identity register information. Sub-paragraph (g) requires a record to be kept of everyone who has ever countersigned one's application for an ID card or an application for a designated document. Does a designated document at present mean only a passport? Does it mean a driving licence and what could it mean in future?
	The more that one reads Schedule 1, the more that one's mind begins to boggle at the sheer size of the database that we seem to be constructing. We need to be convinced that in the Government's rush to record every aspect of our lives, we allow them to record only what is strictly necessary and convenient to us. The overall imperative must be to follow what the Government said on Clause 1. This must be a system convenient to the individual, not merely to the Government.
	Finally, Amendments Nos. 94A and 95A simply remove references to driving licences from Schedule 1. They are probing amendments only to ask the Government to put on record their reasons why they should be included on the national identity register. I beg to move.

Lord Selsdon: This business of the numbers game worries me, particularly as it took so long for the Minister to reply to a letter that I wrote some time ago. It will be noted that the Department for Work and Pensions has issued guidance to help people to prove their identity for social security purposes, and it lists 22 papers. I suddenly thought that if I really wanted to wreck this Bill, I would have introduced the schedule almost in its exact form. Very few people have the ability to remember more than a seven-figure number. I am not sure, but I think that Sloane 1234 was Harrods' telephone number in the old days.
	It also struck me that it might be quite nice for us to know our numbers. If you occasionally want to consult a government department to ask the reference number that you should put in order to prove, for example, a winter fuel allowance, you are asked to type one of two or three or four or five numbers, and it may take half an hour. If all that information is to go on an identity card, which should really be for the benefit of the citizen rather than for the Government, is there a machine that I could get these numbers off? It would be extremely helpful. In addition, will there be a signature? The Government might like to move a little further into biometrics. As secretary of the Parliamentary Space Committee, I can tell the Government that in a very short space of time there will be newer methods of identification. All my life, I have held on to the desired wish that my location should be my Ordnance Survey number—my latitude and longitude. That would be a very short way to solve all the problems. There are complications with postcodes—when a delivery company gets one letter wrong and a bill goes to someone else. All those numbers are a nightmare.
	May we also have the opportunity of a PIN? If someone asks us to insert our card, in order to make sure that it is not forged, may we have a three-figure number or a combination that we can voluntarily put in? There has to be a change in attitude. At the moment, some people believe that an identity card could be helpful. I believe that. We should have the right to prove our identity. But the boot is on the other foot. The Government are trying to say, "We have the right to prove your identity". Here there is a conflict of interest, but, of course, it is not with the noble Baroness.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not sure that I shall be able to answer all the noble Lord's questions, but I hope that I can respond fully to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I quite understand her concern about the moving of the amendments in another place. I shall try to fill in some of the gaps left by Mr McNulty; it is unfortunate that longer responses were not given. These amendments relate to the inclusion in Schedule 1 of the numbers of various documents and counter-signatory details.
	The noble Baroness has explained the amendments. Amendment No. 92 would require the national identity registration number to be the same as the number on the ID card. Consequently, Amendment No. 93 would remove the ability to hold a separate ID card number on the register. The national identity registration number is the number allocated to the person for the lifetime of the scheme. The ID card number is the issue number for that specific card and is likely to change for every card issued. One could compare that to the issue number on a cheque card. It would operate in a similar way. As with banks, that is needed to help with the tracking of card delivery and revocation of cards. It makes sense that there should be two separate numbers, which should both be held on an individual's entry on the register.
	Amendment No. 94 would prevent the Secretary of State holding the number of any document that can be used instead of a passport. This is not a spurious addition—there are certain documents which allow stateless people to travel, but which are not, strictly speaking, either a passport or an identity card. We would want to be able to record the reference numbers of those documents in the same way as we can capture the number of passports and ID cards issued by authorities outside the United Kingdom. Of course, that would assist us in tracking the movement of individuals for immigration purposes.
	Amendments Nos. 94A and 95A are consequential amendments precluding UK driving licence numbers being held on the national identity register. The driver number from a driving licence is to be specifically held for a number of reasons. Should driving licences ever become designated documents, it is only right that we can hold driver numbers on the register. When individuals apply for registration on to the identity cards scheme it would form a useful part of the biographical footprint check if the entry on the register could be cross-referenced with the DVLA database. Finally, holding the driver number in Schedule 1 would allow the police or, for example, car hire companies to cross check whether an individual holds a valid driving licence if that individual has proffered their ID card and consented to a verification check as proof of their identity.
	Amendment No. 95 removes the ability to hold the number of any other designated document which does not fall elsewhere in the paragraph. Documents already considered for designation have their numbers in the list in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1; for example, a passport or residence permit. It is possible that in the future we will want to designate a document that is not covered in this list. In that case, it is important to be able to hold the number of any such document on the national identity register.
	Amendment No. 96 would preclude the register from holding details of counter-signatories. As part of our work to counter potentially fraudulent applications, it will be important to be able to check back and consider all the circumstances surrounding the original application. This would include the counter-signatory to ascertain whether they were complicit in the false application. This is nothing new. Counter-signatories for passport applications already have their information held. We believe that retention of the counter-signatory's details will assist with an effective enrolment process. When first-time adult applicants are interviewed, their knowledge, or lack thereof, of the person who has countersigned their application may indicate whether or not the application is genuine. Additionally, retention of these counter-signatory details will enable the agency to build up a log of devious or suspect counter-signatories that might require further investigation. I am sure noble Lords would agree that any measure which throws light on possible incidences of fraud is one well worth having.
	Finally, I should say that the validation information under paragraph 7 of the register cannot be provided to organisations which request a verification check on the register with the consent of the person concerned under Clause 14. It is excluded by Clause 14(2). We think it is important to retain details of counter-signatories in order to maintain the integrity of the register and as a further check against fraud, much as is the case with passport applications.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for answering fully those questions avoided by Mr McNulty in another place. He has been helpful in taking forward the debate. For example, his response in respect of Amendment No. 96 makes it possible for me not to bring forward a further amendment on Report. Indeed, I suspect that most if not all of the other amendments in the group may not need to be tabled again.
	The Minister's answer in regard to the travel arrangements for stateless persons is helpful. One has to be careful regarding this issue for security reasons while remaining sensitive to those who for proper reasons seek to travel.
	I am of course intrigued by the underlying argument put forward by the Government on some of these amendments that they have in hiding around the corner a list of documents for future designation. We shall turn our attention to that later today. I shall not trespass on later amendments by going into my unease at this point.
	Questions still need to be asked about the sheer range of numbers, in particular the possible reissue of the number on the national identity register. Some confusion could arise in the future. I am old enough to have had a schoolgirl crush on Patrick McGoohan in "The Prisoner", in which he was Number 6. He would say, "I am not a number". Here not only are we going to be numbers, we will be a heck of a lot of numbers. One of the arguments in support of identity cards is that this will be a convenient method of identification, so that one would not have to hold a raft of different means of proving identity. However, the Minister's response has been helpful in terms of being able to winnow what will need to be brought back on Report. I shall read Hansard carefully and, if I may, I shall notify noble Lords who have taken part in the debate of the amendments that will not need to be brought forward again on Report.

The Earl of Onslow: Before my noble friend withdraws her amendment, I have to say how depressed I am by seeing that long, long list of things that have to be added to the register. It goes to the heart of my concern that the Bill is a bureaucratic and intolerable nightmare.

The Countess of Mar: The Minister said that replacement cards would have to have a new number. Is that new number in order to control the people issuing the cards to ensure that they are not fraudulent? If it is not, why can we not have an A, B, C and so on at the end of the existing number as each new card is issued to the same person? This would enable them to have their own number.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My guess is that it will be sequential, as it is with your cheque or Visa card. These have a different issue number each time you are issued with a card. I do not see a great difficulty with that. It seems quite a logical system.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend Lord Onslow about some of the problems. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 93 to 95A not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 95B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	[Amendment No. 96 not moved.]

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: moved Amendment No. 96A:
	Page 43, line 8, leave out paragraph (c).

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The amendment seeks to delete the final sub-paragraph from paragraph 9 of Schedule 1. As noble Lords by now will know, paragraph 9 is the most sensitive part of Schedule 1: it allows the most intimate information vis-à-vis the national identity register to be captured by the state, in effect, in respect of any person with an ID card. Paragraph 9 is given special treatment, quite rightly, in various parts of the Bill because of the sensitivity of its information, which is sometimes referred to as "audit trail" information. For example, Clause 19(4) refers to the rights of certain public authorities to access data on the national identity register but it does not extend to paragraph 9 information.
	This is a probing amendment because I am anxious to know what is meant to be covered by paragraph 9(c), which is couched in wide terms. Nearly everyone who has spoken has said more than once that we have a duty with a Bill of this nature to be quite sure that we know what we are letting ourselves in for hereafter—or, rather, what we are letting our fellow citizens in for—and to be sceptical as to the need for a wide definition of powers. It is not at present clear to me what sub-paragraph (c) is intended to capture beyond the clear provisions of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b). I await with interest the Government's response to the amendment, which I am prepared to withdraw if what they say is satisfactory to the Committee. I beg to move.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I very much share the curiosity of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who has moved the amendment. I hope the Minister will satisfy us. Paragraph 9(c) is couched in extremely wide terms. It states that,
	"other particulars, in relation to each such occasion, of the provision of the information".
	Is it not possible to be a little more exact than this? Or is it, as I suspect, yet another instance of what I would call the quartermaster mentality of the Home Office and the noble Baroness's advisers—"You never know when we might want some other form of information, so let us put in a general sweeper, a kind of Hoover which will suck in every possibility which might confront us"?
	The other point made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, which very much concerns me, is the duty we owe to our fellow citizens. One does not have to look at many newspapers, nor look very far back, to find examples of laws which have passed through your Lordships' House and the other place which have then been attended by the most extraordinary unintended consequences. I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee, but the perfectly nice and very harmless lady who made a speech the other day in front of the Cenotaph about British casualties in Iraq was treated in the most extraordinary fashion. She was taken away by a large escort, when I am quite sure that no Minister had possibly foreseen such a thing happening under that Act of Parliament. At the same time, the gentleman who regularly makes such a nasty mess all over Parliament Square, against whom legislation was aimed, is still there. There is a muddle here.
	The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is absolutely right. I worry about the belief that we might need these powers so we had better have them. There is no thought in the minds of Ministers at the time about what some red tape-minded, inquisitive official might make use of. People do not examine passports too carefully in this country, but I have often been asked the most footling questions about details in my passport when I have been abroad. The added requirement that the Bill will put on everybody to inform officials in any country of intimate and numerous details will afford inquisitive officials a marvellous opportunity to bully people and waste their time. I hope that Ministers will bear that in mind, because I am not at all satisfied.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am very interested in what the Minister will say in reply to the amendment. I spoke at Second Reading about how much I thought citizens would come to dislike the register, and this is a very good example. Am I right in thinking that against one's name and all the other information on the register, there will be, under paragraph 9, every date that a government department has asked for information about one? There will be a long string of these as different government departments ask for details. Every date will be included, as well as details of who has asked the question, and sub-paragraph (c) provides for the particulars they are asking about. The more questions that mount up, the more suspect one will look to another department tuning in.
	The Minister is shaking her head, but I am trying to picture what my entry will look like as one government department after another asks the register about me. Under paragraph 9, the register can show the particulars that were wanted on each occasion. Anyone else looking at this will wonder why all these people want so much information. It will be very interesting to hear what the noble Baroness tells us about paragraph 9(c).

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said about the lady who was arrested by two police sergeants and 10 police constables for the heinous offence of reading out the names of our soldiers who have been killed in Iraq. I sympathise with what he said. The only thing that I did not sympathise with was when he intimated that Ministers had no idea that this sort of thing would happen. There is no reason why they would not have been aware because, when matters were discussed in this House, Ministers were warned of the dangers of the unintended consequences of the legislation, which does not allow a person to make any demonstration within 1,000 metres of Parliament without police permission.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I probably made a mistake—perhaps I was unduly influenced by the fact that it was the noble Baroness on the Front Bench. I find it very difficult to take an unfavourable view of her intentions. I have no doubt about her colleagues' intentions—they were well aware of what they were doing.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I understand perfectly what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said and I have to agree with him. The Minister is a lovely person who comes to this House and gives us as much information and explanation as she possibly can. But during the discussions about the restriction around Parliament, Ministers were warned that the sort of thing that has happened could happen and they chose to ignore what this House and people in the other place said, which is most unfortunate.
	The amendment would delete paragraph 9(c). Paragraph 9 states that:
	"The following may be recorded in the entry in the Register for an individual".
	I do not know what "may" means. Does it mean "must" as we are often told? On other occasions we are told that "may" does not mean "must" but exactly what it says—"may". We should clarify that to see under what circumstances such information "must" or "may" be recorded. That is an important distinction, so perhaps the Minister can tell us whether "may" means "must" in this case. If "may" does not mean "must", under what circumstances will information be recorded?
	Also, I do not understand what sub-paragraph (c) means. It states,
	"other particulars, in relation to each such occasion, of the provision of the information".
	That does not make sense and I am afraid that it must be explained, because it could be so wide in its application. The authorities could be gaining the sort of information that we would not even countenance at the moment. I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to explain exactly what is intended by paragraph 9(c).

The Earl of Onslow: I—

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I wonder whether I may attempt to answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. To hazard a guess—which the Minister may confirm or deny as she chooses—"may" simply gives a power to the person who keeps the register to make entries in the register to this effect. But you can bet your bottom dollar that it will be his job to do so. He will be instructed to enter these matters. The power will exist in the Bill.
	The second question is, what does "other particulars" mean? It must mean the reasons for the person seeking the information. I should like your Lordships to ponder the significance of that for a moment. When a policeman wishes to look at the register to check certain things about an individual, no doubt he will fill in a form. Everybody will fill in a form under this schedule. People will fill a form in every three months to give some new numbers on their driving licence, because they have changed their name, or for some such reason. A mass of information must be given. I am sure that someone seeking information from the register will have to identify himself, state the date on which he makes the application, and give a reason for that. As I have suggested, it may be because someone wants to look into a criminal record, or the tax authorities might want to see who you are and whether you have paid your taxes in the past, and so on. All that personal information will be entered on the register by the person whose job it is to do that, and it will be there for people to read for the rest of that person's life.
	At Second Reading, I spoke against the entire principle of the Bill, but it is when you look at the schedule that you see all the problems emerging. As I said, there will be forms to be filled in and detailed information to be given and private information will remain on that register for the rest of time—unaltered, no doubt, if circumstances have changed. The whole system is a nightmare, and I am amazed that the Government want to go ahead with it.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Perhaps the noble Lord could enlighten me whether "may", which is used so frequently here, ought to be read, or will come to be read, as "must".

Lord Thomas of Gresford: According to the Bill, we will volunteer to have our names on the register; it is all voluntary until the Government make it compulsory. They will make it compulsory within the foreseeable future, so that by the end of the decade we shall all have to fill in those forms, give those details and get our identity card. That will mean, no doubt, that we shall have to give it up on demand by a person who will be authorised to do so. It is just a step in a process to ensure that the state has complete control over our lives.

The Earl of Onslow: I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, stopped me from speaking so that he could speak, because I should like to back up what he has said with every fibre of my being. This is a general catch-all phrase. There used to be a phrase in the Army which went, "conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline", which meant that you would give someone 10 days' CB for whatever slight misdemeanour you thought they had committed. The more one hears of this Bill, the more tyrannical it seems.
	Everyone has been immensely polite about the Minister, and justifiably so, but I draw her attention to that wonderful line in the Aeneid, when, seeing the Trojan Horse, he says:
	"Quidquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentis"—
	or,
	"I fear the Greeks, especially when they are bearing gifts".
	When we are all being polite to the Minister—justifiably—she should be warned.
	That does not stop me from being as rude as I possibly can about this aspect of the Bill. The more you see, the more it grabs, and the more it has to be put down. The Minister will not be in office when finally there is a build-up of people who are fed up of filling form after form every three days and are fed up of being stopped by the Plod and asked for their identity card, which they have left behind at home, and so on. She will not be there to accept the blame for it—nor will the present Home Secretary—but someone eventually will have to untangle the ghastly mess that we are in the process of happily legislating.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Onslow has understood the situation. I regard the Minister not as a Greek bearing a gift but as the gift by the Greeks. It is her colleagues who are the Greeks. While we are talking about her colleagues, where is the noble and learned father of this Bill, the Lord Chancellor? I deeply regret that he is not here. I should very much like his guidance on this point and I am sure that my noble friend will feel the same.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: We disassociate ourselves with any comparison between the noble Baroness and a Trojan horse.

The Countess of Mar: Perhaps I can move to cows. The more speeches I hear on this amendment, the more I wonder how on earth all the data will be handled. I mention cows because I think immediately of the cattle passport scheme and recording cattle movements. We have only two cows but we had a bull last spring for our two cows, and such an amount of paperwork was involved in moving that bull from his own herd to ours and then back again! We did it all on the computer, as instructed by Defra. Then, 12 pieces of paper came to us to be filled in about the "purported" movement of this bull between his own premises and our premises and back again. If Defra cannot handle cattle passports deftly, how will we manage with these ones?

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am most obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for enlightening me about the implications of this clause. Like him, I am completely and utterly opposed to the Bill per se and have been right from the beginning. I was extremely worried about this provision before I spoke but I am even more worried after the noble Lord's speech. The Committee should be obliged to him for going through in detail many of the adverse consequences that could flow from this provision.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I stand before you, Trojan horse and all—and gift, as I understand it. I am told by my noble friend Lord Carter that Ernie Bevin used to say that if you open the Pandora's Box, you will find it full of Trojan horses. I really do not think that this clause need cause as much anxiety as it clearly has and I shall try to explain why. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and all those who have been so complimentary about me. It may be a matter of trying to see how much embarrassment one can cause on the Front Bench and whether I do in fact turn red. Just so that we know it is true, I confess that I do turn red. So, your Lordships do not have to continue to prove that this is true.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Is that a biometric test?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I think that it is an external characteristic which can be observed by the eye.
	This provision is there to assist an individual, because an individual will be able to verify who has looked at his record and why. I hope that I will be able to satisfy the curiosity of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and assure him that we are not emulating the quartermasters whom he seems to know so intimately in terms of wanting to catch all. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for making it a probing amendment because I hope that I will be able to explain it.
	Sub-paragraph (c) would enable the Secretary of State to log who provided the information to the person and so will provide an additional safeguard against unauthorised release of information. Individuals working for the identity cards agency would know that if they provided verification information, their details would be recorded as well as those of the recipient. This is an important safeguard against abuse. It is an important safeguard for the individual. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, will be anxious for the individual to have that sort of security. A further safeguard provided by sub-paragraph (c) is the recording of the technical material used on each occasion, such as the serial number used to verify an ID card. That would be a useful tool for ensuring the integrity of the register.

The Earl of Onslow: Is the noble Baroness saying that this will show if somebody unauthorised has asked for information? It does not prevent the unauthorised person asking, or even being given the information—it just tells you that they are unauthorised and that they have been given unauthorised information. Have I got that right or wrong?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It enables you to check who has asked for information and who has given information about you. So when you made your inquiry it would be possible for you to check who had done that. Also it makes it clear to those who give information that they have to be absolutely certain of its accuracy and that they are entitled to give that information, because the individual concerned will be able to look at the log and check back. So if they have given information that they should not have given, you can look back and find out which reader was used and which individual was involved. You can track the information to try to bring people to account if they have done that which they should not properly have done.
	We think this will be a useful tool for ensuring the integrity of the register and feeding our counter-fraud strategy. It would benefit both the cardholder and the user organisations as the information held through sub-paragraph (c) would support retrospective review of the audit logs to detect possible fraudulent use. If a card holder or user organisation disputed a particular transaction, being able to make recourse to detailed audit information would make repudiation very difficult. We think that is a very important safeguard for the individual.
	Sub-paragraph (c) enables particulars of,
	"the provision of the information"
	to be recorded. It is apt to include the person by whom, and the means by which, information is provided; for example, whether the provision of information was by post or conveyed electronically. It does not provide carte blanche to record the purpose for which information has been requested or any other extraneous information; it is simply part of the audit trail. So that audit trail will have integrity.
	The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, says that the whole system is a nightmare. If it was as he thinks it is, I could understand him saying that, but I assure the Committee that, as we have drafted it, it is not. "May" means may; it does not mean must. Generally speaking, each provision of the information will, as I say, be recorded as a safeguard for the individual. But, for example, if someone uses their card to enter a government building every day, it would not be sensible to record each occasion. It will also not be the case that all information will be kept for ever. The register needs to be maintained in accordance with Clause 3(4), and that is only for so long as it is consistent with the statutory purposes.
	Individuals recorded on the register should be reassured that their details will not be provided without a record being kept of that request. That will provide a deterrent to anyone attempting to obtain information improperly as their details will be recorded. This is in line with data protection good practice. Clauses 19 to 20 set out only very specific circumstances in which information recorded in paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 can be provided to the intelligence and security agencies for their statutory purposes. Other agencies involved in the prevention or detection of crime, such as the police and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and government departments, can also be provided with information but only for purposes connected with the prevention or detection of serious crime.
	Schedule 1(9) has important public interest benefits associated with it, as well as providing reassurance to the individual that information held on the register about them cannot be misused. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, that there will not be a long list of people who will then make it seem as if the individual is in error. It will be possible for the individual to turn the tables, if you like, on them and look at the log and ask why people are making the inquiries, and be able to check it if they think that is appropriate.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I appreciate that. I am not thinking of the barrack-room lawyer who wants to find out what has been done wrong on the register on his or her behalf, but the innocent person who looks up their entry and wonders why on earth all those people have been asking all these things about him. It may be rather frightening. If it was printed out would there be pages of information under each person's name? How much information will be there? I cannot quite picture it.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: One has to bear in mind that the individual or agency asking for information will only receive the information that it has asked for. The individual will be able to see it and the register will keep it, but when an individual asks for specific information from the register, and if they meet the criteria and have the right to receive information, they would receive it. Their details would be recorded on the audit log, so the individual could see the whole picture. The individual and the register would have the whole picture, but those making the inquiry of the register would receive only those bits of information that they are entitled to.

Lord Lucas: After that explanation I remain puzzled about one or two things. I have been searching in vain in this Bill for the right of a person to see their entry on the register. I would be very grateful if the noble Baroness would point that out to me. I am delighted that she says that it is there. I am sure that it is just my blindness, but I would appreciate her help. If the police have access to the information, so must the defence in any situation in order to make things square. If that is the case, it seems enormously important that "may" should be replaced by "must". That gives the authorities the option not to record something in the register about when the information has been accessed if it would in some way be embarrassing to their case or their cause. It is dangerous for an individual that "may" can be used in that way.
	The noble Baroness gave the example of going in and coming out of a government building. When we get our new security system here, I would very much like to be able to demonstrate when I was on the premises and when I was not. It might be extremely important for my case for a defence of murder. If I happened to be on the premises and for some reason the government had decided not to record that fact, I might reasonably be upset. It also allows these things to be done "at the discretion", so if for some reason they did not want me know what was being done or who was looking at what I was doing it could be hidden. That is a very dangerous way of doing things. If we are going to have this record, it must be complete and open. Anything else really is too open to manipulation.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I follow the noble Lord, because I was going to ask that same question. Clause 14, on the provision of information to the individual or to a person authorised by the individual, does not appear to include Schedule 1(9). The noble Baroness has addressed us on the basis that a person would have a right to the information that is to be recorded under subsection (9). I thought that the whole point of subsection (9) was that the individual could not see who had been making inquiries or why or how or when. If the noble Baroness is telling us that somewhere in the Bill there is a power for an individual to see his own entry on these very important matters, I would be glad if she would point it out. If it is there somewhere else in the Bill, why is it not in Clause 14?

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I do not know whether the noble Baroness would like to respond to those questions before I say my last piece? It might be helpful to the Committee.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I simply remind the Committee that the whole of the Data Protection Act bites on this Bill. All the protections and all the opportunities to seek and ask for data under the procedures of the Data Protection Act prevail. The data are subject to access under Section 7 of the Data Protection Act. The £10 standard fee is subject only to the standard exemptions, and you will also be able to make free online checks of your own entry. Clause 14 is about verification by private organisations with the individual's consent. The data subject access provision is not in this Bill; it is in the Data Protection Act. We will still have the normal processes whereby, if an Act applies, we do not import the whole Act and recite it in the next Bill. The Data Protection Act applies in its full force and all its provisions apply here.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: How can that be squared with Clause 14(2)? It says that:
	"The only information about an individual that may be provided to a person under this section"—
	and that includes the individual himself—is as set out in paragraphs (a) to (h), which, for example, highlights paragraph 8 and other information in Schedule 1. Is the noble Baroness saying, "Forget all about Clause 14(2). The Data Protection Act allows you to see your own entry so that you can see who has been prying into your affairs, when and for what reason"? I do not believe that that is right. Surely the express terms of this clause must prevail over the Data Protection Act.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I do not know whether the noble Lord was with us when we had an extensive debate about the basis upon which a third party is entitled to receive information. Clause 14 concerns the provision of information, with consent, to a third party. That is distinct from a data subject access request under Section 7 of the Data Protection Act, which relates specifically to the individual.
	In my earlier answer, I tried to make it clear that Clause 14 is about verification by private organisations with the individual's consent. We had quite some debate about this issue during our previous day in Committee. I had hoped that we could accept that that was the case. I appreciate that the noble Lord may not have been present throughout but we debated that subject extensively on that occasion. That is why there is a distinction between that part of the Bill and the Data Protection Act, and I hope that I have been able to clarify that to the Committee's satisfaction.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am most grateful to Members of the Committee who have contributed to this mini debate. It has been helpful and I am grateful for the noble Baroness's reply. This is a probing amendment and much has come out of our discussion. To some extent, I am satisfied by what the Minister says. However, some aspects of paragraph 9 have emerged very clearly during the past 37 minutes, and I agree with noble Lords who are anxious about the word "may" as opposed to "shall". We all heard the noble Baroness's explanation of that, but I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and my noble friend Lord Thomas that it is not good enough to allow those who are maintaining the register to have absolute and unfettered discretion as to what they put in and what they leave out. As the noble Baroness said, paragraph 9(c) is as much for the benefit of the individual ID card holder as it is for those seeking paragraph 9 information, and I take that point. But, as I said, it cannot be right to allow a person charged with keeping the register to say, "It could be a bit embarrassing for X or Y if we put in the fact that that government department has been asking repeatedly over the past three years every three weeks for this category of information". We all need to think about this matter and come back to it on Report.
	I do not intend to prolong this debate but I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could contemplate one issue hereafter.
	It is important that if we retain sub-paragraph (c)—and I am persuaded that, if there is to be a paragraph (9), it is proper that that sub-paragraph should be there—the individual whose record in the register is searched under a paragraph (9) request, should know what information is sought. Clauses 19 and 20, and, indeed, Clause 14, are quite specific about the types of information that can be sought. It is important that that should be logged so that the card holder has some idea of what is going on.
	I should add before withdrawing the amendment that the noble Baroness kept talking about "verification". I am not criticising her, but it would be more helpful to the House if she did not use that word because her reference to this part of the Bill was confined to outside agencies, authorities and commercial entities seeking "verification", which would be a much less intrusive exercise than seeking information. I think the noble Baroness would agree with me that although those clauses include a use of the register for verification, there is a much wider entitlement for public authorities and commercial organisations that have signed the necessary agreement with the Government to seek any information on the register except in paragraph (9), which is confined to certain cases. I am merely suggesting that the noble Baroness in confining her references to verification might conceivably be misleading herself as to the wider purport of these clauses. I am sure that she is not and I hope she will not mind me making that point.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Certainly, I do not mind, but I do not agree with the noble Lord. In part, the answer is contrary to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Clause 14(8) specifically states:
	"The restrictions imposed by or under this section on the information that may be provided to a person do not affect any right apart from this Act for an individual to be provided with information about the contents of his entry in the Register".
	So that specifically allows applications under the Data Protection Act without a limit being put.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am grateful that the noble Baroness directly drew my attention to that. Will she, therefore, confirm that an individual has a right to see everything that is recorded under paragraph (9) of Schedule 1?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: An individual has a right to see anything and everything that they are permitted to see as a result of the rights that they exercise under the Data Protection Act and this Bill.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: That is not an answer to my question, because I asked about that paragraph. I do not want to have to delve into the Data Protection Act, I want to know whether that means that a person has a right to know who has inspected the entry, when it was inspected and for what reason.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble Lord knows well that the reason I couched my answer in that way is that all rights are constrained by the legal framework imposed by the Data Protection Act and this Bill. My interpretation is that yes, you would have that right, but subject to the Data Protection Act exemptions. I am right to say that, instead of us having a whole dissertation of what the Data Protection Act states and all its exemptions.

Baroness Turner of Camden: Clause 14(1) states that the,
	"application for the provision of information to that person is made . . . with the authority of the individual";
	that is, before the information is provided, it looks as though the person concerned has the right to give authority, whereas, paragraph (9) on page 43 gives the impression that that would be after the event. Does the individual have a right to say "Yes" or "No" before the information is given?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Perhaps I can help my noble friend. Clause 14 deals with,
	"Provision of information for verification or otherwise with consent".
	That is precisely the situation that my noble friend has mentioned, where, for instance, one goes to a third party and the third party asks whether the person will agree to verification taking place and confirmation on the register; the person says "Yes"; and the third party is then able to approach that information on the register and the register is able to be used to verify the assertions made by the individual. That is why Clause 14 is phrased as it is, distinct from the issues that arise under Clause 9.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: In case the noble Baroness is under a misapprehension following that answer, of course, under Clauses 19 and 20 applications may be made by public authorities, the police and the security services without the consent of a particular individual.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My only additional point is that later amendments deal explicitly with the right of an individual to have access to his or her entries on the register. Intentionally, therefore, I did not enlarge on that issue in this debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 1 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 97 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 97ZA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 97, not moved.]
	Clause 4 [Designation of documents for purposes of registration etc.]:

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: moved Amendment No. 97A:
	Page 4, line 27, leave out paragraph (a).

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Amendment No. 97A leaves out the words,
	"documents that a person has a power or duty to issue by virtue of provision made by or under an enactment".
	One could say that those words are entirely innocent of any detail. They are very vague so I have tabled the amendment to explore the mind of the noble Baroness to see whether they can be improved. They could hardly be vaguer. I am starting to believe that vagueness in the language of the Home Office is a high cardinal virtue but not elsewhere. I should be very interested to see whether the noble Baroness is willing to change these words so that they mean something and provide some guidance. They caught my eye as being part of a very vague, massive parcel, which needs a lot of probing. I realise that the Government are becoming impatient and want to get on with the Bill, but I hope that they sympathise with the desire that is expressed quite briefly by Members on this side of the Chamber that some of it is very confusing and very vague indeed—unacceptably vague. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Amendments Nos. 98 and 102A, in my name, are grouped with this amendment. I agree entirely with what has just been said by my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. Clause 4 gives the Secretary of State the power to use statutory instruments to designate documents. If a document becomes a designated document, anyone who applies for that document must also apply for an ID card unless he already has one. The operative term there is that he must apply for an ID card. The compulsion that exists in Clause 5(2)(a) is foreshadowed here. Clause 5(2) says that,
	"Where an application to be issued with a designated document is made by an individual",
	that person must also apply to be entered on the national identity register. Paragraphs 35 and 36 of the Explanatory Notes give passports and residence permits as the only examples of what could be designated documents.
	My Amendment No. 98 would limit designation to passports alone. Amendment No. 102A gives a list of documents that we say must not become designated documents by statutory instrument. The list could have been much longer, but it is simply a sample of documents to ask the Government what they intend should become designated. We refer simply to driving licences, national health cards, marriage certificates, registration of civil partnerships, documents relating to state retirement pensions and the Criminal Records Bureau disclosure numbers.
	In debates in this House and in another place, the Government have said time and time again that, during the initial period of operation of the register, it will be voluntary to have an ID card. We believe that the reality is very different. As soon as any document is designated, it will be compulsory to have an ID card. We believe that that is compulsion by stealth and it is a theme we will pursue in great depth as we reach Clause 5. I shall not therefore go into too much detail now.
	My amendments in this group would not remove compulsion—we look at that in Amendment No. 103 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, but they would at least confine the designation of documents to passports. Why should the Government wish to designate any of the other documents if they are genuine about their claim that the initial period is supposed to be voluntary?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for moving these probing amendments. I need to make clear yet again that the identity card scheme is being designed as, and is intended to become, a compulsory scheme. There is therefore no stealth about it. We have been saying that since 2001—

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I do not contend against the noble Baroness on that. My argument throughout has been that the Government have said that the initial period is supposed to be voluntary. We say that that is the compulsion by stealth, because even in the initial period it will be compulsory to register for an ID card in a wide variety of circumstances.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand what the noble Baroness says. However, in a system that has been designed from the outset to be compulsory—it has been said that we will introduce it in stages, but always within the context of a compulsory scheme—it is difficult to see what is stealth-like about that. It has been very open.
	In order to phase in the introduction of ID cards and avoid any big-bang move to compulsion, it has always been our intention that certain documents would be designated under Clause 4. When an individual applies, either on a first-time basis or on a renewal, for one of these documents, they will be entered on the national identity register and issued with an ID card. We have specified that we intend initially to designate passports and residence permits and other immigration documents so that resident British nationals and foreign nationals are entered on the register and issued with ID cards. Amendment No. 98 would limit the designated documents to passports only, which would prevent us from capturing any resident foreign nationals before compulsion. Amendment No. 97A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, seeks to remove Clause 4(2)(a) and allow only documents issued by a Minister of the Crown.
	On the other hand, Amendment No. 102A would specifically preclude the Government designating several documents, including driving licences, national health cards or Criminal Records Bureau disclosures. I understand what the noble Baroness intends, but I do not understand why she includes passports but not residence permits. They capture people who are resident here, and I would have thought that the noble Baroness would want them included. I understand that she is trying to differentiate between that document and driving licences, but the two go easily together. I do not understand the logic of including one and not the other, particularly in relation to long-term residents who may not be British citizens, but who are, to all intents and purposes, resident in this country for the foreseeable future.
	We think that it does not make sense to deprive the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the benefits that the ID card system could bring until the move to compulsion. Therefore, we will resist any amendment designed to limit our ability to capture this information on the register. At this stage of the development of the scheme, it is our intention that only passports and residence permits will be designated. However, it is right that we retain the flexibility to designate other documents as the scheme progresses, if it becomes apparent that other benefits could be achieved from capturing applicants for other documents.
	We would not wish to include in the Bill a list of documents that we could designate, as we would eventually have to designate all the documents we list, and further investigation during the development of the scheme might prove that there is no benefit in designating a particular document. For that reason, we think that the way in which we have phrased the provision is the more appropriate approach.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Having listened to the Minister's response, it may be helpful if I say that I have my own reasons for not including residence permits in my probing amendment. I have no problem with the answer she gave on that. We may not like her answer, but my noble friend Lady Seccombe has just informed me that the manner in which the Minister has gone into such helpful detail means that she will not now need to move Amendment No. 99.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am grateful to the Minister, but I am not quite sure what I am grateful for. I did not intend to press my amendment to a vote, as it is silly to ask to leave the words out, but the purpose of my amendment was to ask what they mean and whether it would be possible to improve on them. The Minister may find herself, following the lead of her department, entirely wedded to the principle of vagueness, in which case the words are very satisfactory. I am prepared to give way to the Minister if she will say a word about my amendment.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I apologise if the noble Lord does not feel that I did justice to his amendment, because I am anxious to do so. Clause 4(2)(a) covers documents issued under a statutory power, either by a Minister or by some other person with statutory authority. Clause 4(2)(b) is designed to cover documents issued by Ministers under prerogative powers, such as passports. The short answer is that the clause is not vague; it is precise in order to capture those two different entities. I hope the noble Lord is reassured.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Although not vague, Clause 4(2) covers a wide range of bodies. I believe I am right in thinking that television licences would come within it, as well as practising certificates for solicitors and bookies' licences.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I think we have now abolished dog licences, but I take the point that the noble Lord has raised. I do not wish to delay the Committee, but the Minister's claim that the words I quoted had anything precise about them was stretching language too far.
	It never occurred to me to accuse the Government of stealth in this matter. As guileless and innocent as I am, I was never so simple-minded as to believe that the Government would not eventually wish to make this scheme compulsory. That was clear to me at all times. I suspected, and I still suspect, that the Government thought that they might as well get the clamour over. They rightly foresaw that the Bill would not be to everybody's taste, and therefore they decided to sweeten it, to put a bit of sugar on the pill so that everyone could swallow it more or less comfortably. Then, by the time they come to make it compulsory, the most powerful weapon they have—boring everybody, wearying everybody and tiring them out—will have had a chance to take effect. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 100 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 101:
	Page 4, line 35, at end insert—
	"( ) No United Kingdom citizen may be subject to any charge or civil or criminal penalty, arising from his refusal to surrender any lawfully held document issued by a Minister of the Crown or Northern Ireland department or any other person authorised by them, if a purpose of requiring its surrender is to replace it, or require its replacement, by the issue of a document designated under this Act, if that person does not wish to participate in an identity card scheme or Register, unless that identity card scheme has been made compulsory for all United Kingdom citizens over the age of 18."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: In moving Amendment No. 101, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 102, 147, 148 and 150, in my name. Amendments Nos. 145 and 146 were originally in this group, but they have been degrouped with my consent and will be dealt with later.
	As ever, I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. Like him, I was not so guileless as to believe that this scheme is not intended to be compulsory overall. My noble friend is right that the Government have made clear their ultimate objective: to force all of us to have ID cards. In the beginning, we were not clear about what kind of scheme it is, with its mammoth register and all the difficulties involved in that. The public, who I am sure all avidly read the Labour Party manifesto, would not have believed that, because it said:
	"We will introduce ID cards, including biometric data like fingerprints, backed up by a national register and rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports".
	The Minister has made it clear that when the Government use the word "voluntary" they mean "compulsory". In that case, I have to look at the Bill in a different way. I am sure we will have full debates on that issue when we come to Clauses 5, 6 and 7.
	My amendments are modest. Amendment No. 101 would protect United Kingdom citizens from being forced to suffer any penalty if they refused to surrender to a Minister of the Crown or a Northern Ireland department any document that they hold lawfully, provided that the purpose of the demand for the surrender of that document arose out of the Government's determination to replace it with a designated document that would carry with it a requirement for the person to apply to be entered on the national identity register and thereby to have an ID card, according to the Bill. They would be subject to a penalty only after the scheme has been made compulsory—the Government would say "fully compulsory"—for all by the super-affirmative process.
	Amendment No. 102 goes further and establishes that somebody who has to apply for a new document that is a designated document for the purposes of the Bill cannot be forced to have an ID card unless certain conditions are met. They are that the person has stated in writing that he wants to have an ID card, or that the scheme has been made compulsory for everybody over the age of 18.
	Amendment No. 147 removes the distinction in Clause 8(6) between an application for an ID card and an application to be entered on, or to confirm an entry on, the national identity register. We believe that people should be given the opportunity to refuse to have an ID card in the initial period, the so-called "voluntary period", even if they are entered on the register.
	Amendments Nos. 148 and 150 knock out more of the compulsion by stealth in the voluntary period. They remove subsections that force one to apply for an ID card when one applies for a designated document. I believe that my amendments are entirely in line with the commitment in the Labour Party manifesto. Therefore, I have high hopes that the Minister will want to adopt them. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Amendments Nos. 101 and 102 seek to remove the link; I understand that. Amendments Nos. 148 and 150 seek the same regarding applications for the issue of ID cards.
	The Government do not intend to make an individual surrender a lawfully held document to obtain a replacement document that has been designated. The intention is that, for example in the case of passports, an individual will renew his passport after designation when it is due to expire and will be issued with an ID card. There will be no need to surrender a still-valid passport to be issued with an ID card. That makes Amendment No. 101 unnecessary. I hope I have been able to reassure the noble Baroness about that. We have always been clear that linking registration and ID cards to the issue of the designated documents is a central part of the scheme. No one is forced to obtain a British passport and to travel abroad, nor are foreign nationals forced to come here and obtain residence permits.
	However, once designation is implemented, there will be no opt-in: either the individual renews the designated document and is entered on to the register and issued with an ID card, or he decides not to apply for one, as he is free to do until compulsion is introduced. Amendment No. 102, which requires the applicant to consent to the entry on to the register, is therefore not necessary. In addition, Amendment No. 148, which seeks the consent of an individual to be issued with an identity card via a designated document authority, is also not necessary.
	Amendment No. 150 would not allow an individual to apply for an ID card via a designated document authority without an application for the designated document. If it is convenient for an individual to make an application for his ID card in that way, I do not see any reason to preclude him doing so. The designated document authority could process the application in the same way, and it is irrelevant to the ID card scheme whether a designated document is issued at the same time.
	Amendment No. 147 would remove the distinction in Clause 8(6) between an application for an ID card and an application to be entered in, or to confirm an entry on, the register. An application for an identity card can normally be made only in conjunction with an application to be entered in, or to confirm an entry on, the register, which may or may not be in conjunction with applying for a designated document. However, there is good reason for drafting Clause 8(6) in this way. It reflects the structure of the legislation as a whole, which deals with the entry into the register and the issue of ID cards separately. It would not be open to an individual applying to be entered on to the register to opt not to have an ID card, but there are circumstances in which a person may be entered on the register but not provided with an ID card. Clause 8(4) gives power to prescribe cases in which a person need not be issued with an ID card, notwithstanding that he is entitled to be, and is in fact, registered. Clause 8(5) conversely allows an ID card to be issued to someone who is not entitled to register but about whom facts are recorded on the register. In practice, an application to be registered and an application for an ID card will probably be made on a combined form.
	However, it is right that for the purposes of this legislation the two are recognised as separate applications. There may be cases where it is appropriate to enter someone on the register but not issue them with a card, or to issue a card to someone not entitled to be registered. I hope that that explains to the noble Baroness's satisfaction why we think this way forward is appropriate and why we believe that, until the scheme becomes compulsory, there is an opportunity for choice.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Would it not be more honest of the Government to stop talking about the scheme being voluntary at the moment? People are saying to me, "I do not worry about identity cards; it is voluntary for the time being. It may never become compulsory". Would it not be more honest to say, "It is compulsory if you want to have a passport"? That would be much more honest. It is not voluntary at all if you want to have a passport. I think that that double-speak is doing a lot of damage and, in the long run, will make people less trusting of the whole scheme.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hear what the noble Baroness says, but at the moment if one has a passport, or has only recently obtained a passport, it will last for 10 years. Therefore, throughout that period you will not have to even think about the issue, unless you specifically want, for your own purposes, to become additionally registered so that you can get an ID card and just use it to go to Europe. Many people—and I am sure that the noble Baroness has had this said to her—cannot wait for that to happen because they think that it will be very useful and helpful, and they want it for their everyday lives.
	But those of us who have a passport which is likely to last a long time—say, for the next 10 years—and anyone who gets a biometric passport, say, next April, and that lasts for 10 years, will have to decide, until the scheme becomes compulsory, whether they want to continue with that. Many will fall within that category.
	If one has to apply for a passport later, once the designated documents are used—you will get a combined ID card and passport—and you choose not to use your ID card but only to use your passport, that is a matter for you. We have made clear in the Bill that you do not have to carry an ID card with you, you will not have to produce it to anyone and it will not therefore be used as an identity card which has to be produced for any specific purpose. So it enables us to set up the system in a way that is perfectly proper but which retains an opportunity for people to voluntarily apply for an ID card if they still have a current passport, or if they do not want to take advantage of this they do not have to have a passport. It is a choice we all have even now.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Until my noble friend Lady Carnegy's intervention, I was going to be a lot kinder in my response than I now have to be, because I think that my noble friend has elicited from the Minister a very worrying attempt at reassurance. The Minister tells us that we do not need to be concerned if we have—as I have—a passport renewed only within the last year because renewal is something way off in the future that I do not have to worry about.
	The fact is that on 15 November in this House, as reported at col. 994, the Minister estimated that, by restricting the scheme to passport designation, by the time—if this Government were still in power—they wished to move to the full period of compulsion, 85 per cent of the population would already be on the national identity register. That does not square with the reassurance that she has just tried to give my noble friend. We will need to debate that point at length in other groups of amendments because it goes to the very heart of the reservations some of us have about this scheme.
	I will return to the part where I was going to accept some reassurances—if I can reassure the Minister on that. The Minister gave a very careful and detailed response to my amendments, for which I am grateful. She gave an assurance with regard to Amendment No. 101 in particular, which I will read extremely carefully in Hansard.  But I took it that I could be assured that the Government will not require the surrender of a document in order to engineer the issue of a designated document. The noble Baroness nods her head. In that case, I shall want to talk to my noble friends who are speaking to the Road Safety Bill because, as I understand it, when we divided recently in this House to remove Clauses 29 and 30 from that Bill, it was to ensure that the very assurance that the Minister has just given us was enshrined within that Bill for driving licences. The assurance that the noble Baroness has given the Committee today on Amendment No. 101 may well mean that the Government will not seek to overturn the decision of this House to remove Clauses 29 and 30 of the Road Safety Bill. For today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 102 and 102A not moved.]
	On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I oppose the Question that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill. I do not intend to speak at length, but it is worth drawing together a few strands of the debate so far. Clause 4 is particularly troublesome, as has been made clear from our debate on the amendments moved to it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, it is a back-door means of introducing compulsion of the identity card. Those Members of the Committee dead against a compulsory card are inclined to be dead against Clause 4. As was just said, at Second Reading the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said that making passports a designated document would bring in roughly 85 per cent of the adult population.
	For the purposes of bringing it in or for designating documents which would have the effect of compulsion, Clause 4 does not have the super-affirmative procedure that other parts of the Bill have—Clause 6, in particular. We must also consider that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee took up the fact that at Second Reading it was stated that,
	"documents issued by private bodies".—[Official Report, 31/10/05; col. 114.]
	could not be designated documents for the purpose of Clause 4. It has been clear from this afternoon's discussion that that is not so. Most people would consider the Law Society to be a private body, but for the purposes of issuing solicitors' practising certificates, it acts in pursuance of statutory powers and, for that purpose, is a public authority and within the ambit of Clause 4. There are many examples of what the man in the street would consider a private body having such powers. It is the very breadth of the clause that is one of its unacceptable features.
	The powers and duties of the designated document authority are also troublesome. Clause 10 lists the functions of persons issuing designated documents. They are extremely wide. They have wide competence; they have the right to revoke designated documents and, hence, the ID cards that go with them; they have the right to require surrender of the same. One wonders just what sort of supervision of those designated bodies the Government propose, because there is little in the Bill. I suppose that they will rely on the fact that the Secretary of State can enter negotiations with a designated document authority, but that is another aspect of the whole designation procedure that we—and I think that I can speak for the Conservative Benches—find completely unacceptable. Clause 10 can be brought into effect under the negative procedure, which is worse still.
	Finally, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, in its report of 17 October, chose to draw the House's attention to the provisions of Clause 4 in relation to Clause 10. In effect, it issued a warning to us. Briefly, and because there is a will on the part of many here to resist compulsion, there is a sense that Clause 4 should not stand part of the Bill.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Briefly, I say again that I find the vagueness of the clause unacceptable. It begins with the words:
	"The Secretary of State may by order".
	I sympathise with the noble Baroness that she should have the considerable burden of putting through your Lordships' House a Bill of such vagueness, which provokes real suspicion and hostility. With my sympathy to the noble Baroness, which is not entirely consistent with crocodile tears, I express a slight note of regret that the intending Secretary of State, the present noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, has not seen fit to put in much of an appearance or show his energetic and enthusiastic support, or his eternal gratitude to the noble Baroness for the burden that she has carried.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My name has been joined with that of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, in raising a debate on clause stand part. The noble Lord and I have not always agreed on every aspect of legislation, so when he says that he thinks that he can speak for the Conservatives, some might be surprised. On this occasion, I stand four-square behind everything that he said about the Question whether the clause shall stand part.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, that this is a Home Office Bill. I know that he always desires to have my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor by my side, but, on this one, to put it colloquially, I am sailing or flying solo. I am quite happy to carry that burden and the noble Lord should not feel that it is too great for me.
	Clause 4 provides a mechanism for individuals to apply for an ID card. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is antipathetic to the Bill. I know that his party would prefer the Bill not to exist. I know that he would prefer there not to be ID cards. They have been a major part of the Government's agenda for some time. As I said earlier, we have been dealing with the issue, Clause 4 being an integral part of that agenda, since 2001–02. We have been open about the policy. Indeed, the Committee will well remember that it was very much part of the case that was put to the country, with which the public seem to be in tune and which they support, not least by virtue of the fact that they voted with their hearts and their judgment by returning this Government.
	Clause 4 is key to delivery of the identity cards scheme, because it provides a mechanism by which individuals can be brought into the scheme. An application for a designated document will, in effect, trigger an application for an ID card. The issuing procedures are set out in detail in Clause 8, but the designation of the document must precede any of those procedures where the ID card is issued together with, or as part of, the designated document. So a standalone card could be issued by the Secretary of State under Clause 8 without any documents being designated.
	The advantages of proceeding like this are that there are already established processes for issuing documents like passports and residence permits, which will form the basis of the work of the ID cards delivery agency. We know already that biometric data will have to be included on our passports next year, albeit that, first, the facial identifiers will primarily be used. So biometric passports are coming anyway. Rollout will be incremental as people come to apply for or renew documents or, in the case of foreign nationals, arrive to stay in the United Kingdom for more than three months. The problems associated with dealing with this introduction in any other way can be minimised by good management. This will allow us to manage it well.
	As I have indicated already, we intend to provide the facility for people to apply for standalone ID cards if they do not need or want a passport—some people do not want to travel anywhere other than Europe and, therefore, would prefer to have an ID card—or if they have received a passport shortly before the scheme starts and would like an ID card as a convenient way of proving identity.
	It is important to bear in mind that the Bill does not designate any documents. It gives the power to designate documents by order—a process which requires approval from both Houses subject to affirmative resolution procedure. It is also important that the only documents that can be designated are those which are issued with statutory authority or which a Minister of the Crown or Northern Ireland department is authorised or required to issue. Of course, I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, says in relation to the Law Society and others which have been designated.
	Indeed, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has commented in its report on the Bill that the power to designate documents which are issued under a statutory power, but not by Ministers, is potentially very wide—a point that was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. If we limit the power to documents issued by Ministers, we would not be able to designate documents such as firearms certificates issued by chief officers of police or documents issued under a statutory power by a private agency. Having said that, I must make it clear that we have no current intention to designate those documents and we are giving very careful consideration to whether we should limit the power of designation as suggested by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
	I have been as clear as I can in speaking to the amendments in relation to Clause 4 so that I can assist the Committee to understand the ambit of the designated documents about which we are directly speaking. With that, I hope that Members of the Committee will feel content to allow this clause to stand part of the Bill. We will give careful consideration to the comments made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

The Earl of Onslow: The noble Baroness gave a wonderful Freudian slip. She listed a number of documents and said, "We have absolutely no power of designating them". But then she takes the power to designate them. Those of us on this side of the House who care about civil liberties find that desperately frightening and unattractive. I wish that the Government could understand that.
	When the noble Baroness says that the electorate elected her, of course that is right; I do not mean the noble Baroness, nor me—but I draw her attention to the fact that I have slightly more electors than she does, arcane though they may be. I am dredging a quotation up from the back of my mind, which goes, "Those who ring the bells will wring their hands later". That is what I suspect will happen with the public over this Bill. This Government will not be here to reap the whirlwind or whatever you do from dragon's teeth. I am afraid that all one can say is that.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I am mildly pleased that the Government will consider the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which could be helpful. There is obviously a very big debate, which I tried not to have, so I will not be provoked by the noble Baroness's remarks on the manifesto commitments and all that. However, I cannot resist touching on her reference to firearms certificates. Of course, a wonderful example of a catatonic failure—if one could call it that—is the failure over many years to have a national register that gives details of all firearms certificates. If we cannot manage that—a few tens of thousands of certificates—one begins to reasonably wonder how on earth we can manage this uniquely gargantuan central state register.
	The noble Baroness made a good point about passports. Why in heaven's name can we not be done with 85 per cent of the population holding passports and the other 15 per cent, if they want, having a document that carries the same information as passports and that is it? There would be no need for a central register or for £20 billion of expenditure and we would all be happy.

Clause 4 agreed to.
	Clause 5 [Applications relating to entries in Register]:
	[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 104 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

The Earl of Northesk: moved Amendment No. 105:
	Page 5, line 19, leave out paragraph (a).

The Earl of Northesk: In moving Amendment No. 105, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 106, 168, 169 and 170. We return to the vexed issue of "convenience", which provoked a fair amount of discussion on our first day in Committee. Amendments Nos. 105 and 169 propose the deletion of the words,
	"to attend at a specified place and time",
	from Clauses 5 and 12 respectively. In our earlier debates, it was established via the text in Clause 1(3)(a) that the national identity register and its associated ID cards are intended to provide a convenient method whereby individuals can prove their identity. As the Minister commented, the utility of the word "convenient" is that:
	"It can be used as a template or mirror against which many of the provisions will be viewed".—[Official Report, 15/11/05; col. 1059.]
	If that is tested against the possible requirement for an individual,
	"to attend at a specified place and time",
	in order to submit his details for entry on the register, inconvenience rather than convenience comes to mind.
	We all lead increasingly busy lives. Individuals have lifestyle commitments, both work-related and leisure-related, which are not always easy to work around. An obvious example would be night-shift workers. Accordingly, the current drafting implies an overly prescriptive and burdensome obligation, both physically and financially. The wider context of that is important. The manifesto states unequivocally that it is the intention that the scheme should be voluntary—at least initially. Up to a point that has been the Government's chosen mechanism for achieving public acceptance of it. But if individuals are effectively to be dragooned to turn up at an enrolment centre in a place and at a time that may be inconvenient, resentment towards the scheme could surface very quickly, which is an outcome that I am sure the Government would rather avoid.
	My other amendments in the group all pursue the same theme. They aim to make it plain that the enrolment and updating processes should be designed for the convenience of the applicant for an ID card rather than for the convenience of the Government. Amendments Nos. 106 and 170 seek to insert the words printed on the Marshalled List, so that the paragraph would read,
	"to attend at his convenience at a specified place and time".
	Amendment No. 168 proposes that notification of changes to an individual's registrable facts on the database should be made within "a reasonable" rather than "the prescribed" period. Perhaps, ideally, the "prescribed" period—say, 30 days—should be explicitly stated in the Bill.
	Nevertheless, there is a thematic point to be made. As already observed, the Government intend the scheme to be convenient for the individual. That being so, arbitrary time limits to circumscribe individual behaviour are inappropriate, the more so because of the stiff penalties for non-compliance. In those circumstances, notifications by individuals within a reasonable period would be proportionate.
	I would be grateful too if, when she comes to reply, the Minister clarifies the Government's current thinking on the enrolment process. For example, is it intended that there will be dedicated enrolment centres? If so, how many? What would be their opening times? Would any of them be mobile to serve rural communities? As she commented on our first day, the word "convenient",
	"emphasises the kind of value that we wish to add to these provisions".—[Official Report, 15/11/05; col. 1055.]
	This implies that the Government are well seized of the necessity of ensuring that the interface between the national identity register and individual citizens should have adequate levels of flexibility to afford those applying for an ID card with appropriate degrees of convenience. I hope very much, therefore, that the Minister is in a position to demonstrate that such "added value" is at the forefront of the Government's mind so far as concerns the enrolment process. I beg to move.

Lord Crickhowell: This is an important group of amendments. I have added my name to Amendments Nos. 105 and 106, and tabled separately Amendments Nos. 107, 152 to 154 and 160. The current wording in the Bill is pretty extraordinary. Amendments Nos. 105 to 109 refer to the voluntary stage in the proceedings for anyone who wishes to apply for an ID card. Amendments Nos. 152 to 154 address the scheme when it later becomes compulsory. Under both clauses, the Bill states that the Secretary of State may "require" the applicant to do a number of things as he "thinks fit". Among the things that the Secretary of State may think it fit to require the applicant to do is to,
	"attend at a specified place and time".
	I am not aware of any other piece of legislation that places a legal requirement on the individual to attend at a "specified place and time", whether or not it is convenient or practical for him to do so. In those circumstances, I think we are entitled to lay down certain basic requirements and to get a great deal more information out of the Government.
	Like those tabled by my noble friend, my amendments refer to "convenience". For example, Amendment No. 107 would replace the words,
	"at a specified place and time",
	with,
	"as may be reasonably practical and convenient at an approved place for registration within a specified time".
	Amendment No. 160 goes much further. It provides that before we give the Government the go-ahead on the scheme, we should be told very much more about their plans. It would require the Government to produce a report for Parliament detailing the arrangements to be made and for those arrangements to be approved by Parliament before the scheme can go ahead.
	Surely no one can doubt that getting the whole thing under way on the basis of public acceptability is very important. Earlier today I quoted from a report prepared by several technical experts. They comment that:
	"Fast successful, reliable and above all accessible enrolment procedures are vital to gain public acceptance of a National Identity Register—and indeed the whole national ID card scheme. In Hong Kong, generally recognised as having a very advanced and successful biometric identity scheme, enrolment takes approximately 20 minutes".
	But Hong Kong has certain advantages. It covers a relatively small area. Those of us who live in the remoter parts of the countryside think that things here may not be so easy. The report goes on:
	"In Egypt, with its more diverse and scattered population, three types of enrolment are used: static enrolment stations in buildings, portable stations that could be taken to outside locations such as old people's homes and mobile stations to cover remote areas. In the UK it is similarly important that the enrolment and authentication process should be designed to cater for all sections of society, particularly those with special needs".
	The Government must have gone into this in some detail because their published regulatory impact assessment and the letter circulated by the noble Baroness both state that the costings produced so far include the costs of setting up the places at which registration is to take place. Significantly, however, the costings do not include the costs applicable to the Foreign Office, embassies and consular posts. I have referred to this on previous occasions and I shall refrain from further comment until we reach the debate to be held later when we return to the question of costs.
	One further aspect ought to be borne in mind when considering this issue: the question of staffing. Again, the report comments:
	"The security of a system is only as good as the personnel who run it. Strict vetting procedures need to be put in place to ensure that personnel at all stages of the system are honest, aware of what to do in the event of uncovering criminal activity and always operate according to whatever process and procedures are brought in to mastermind the security of the system".
	The report goes on to set out further detailed comments on those matters, and states that,
	"without expert management and supervision",
	all the technological gimmicks that are produced will be "of little use". We are dealing here with the importance of providing convenient places for the public which are properly and efficiently managed to deal with the security aspects at costs that are reasonable not only in this country, as I have pointed out, but also in Foreign Office bases around the world. People lose their passports and they have to be replaced, as happened to me on one occasion. I think that we are entitled to some pretty detailed information about these arrangements before we give the scheme the go-ahead.
	At the back of my mind I have a memory that, at some point in our proceedings, either the noble Baroness or the noble Lord on the Front Bench beside her referred to the provision of something like 70 enrolment centres. However, I may not have that right. If it is to be 70 enrolment centres, let us look at what we are talking about. Even if only a handful are set up in London, where the public transport system is very good, and just one or two in each of the major cities, the numerical score would still drop down quite quickly. What will people do in Scotland? It is no good saying to those living in the remoter areas that there is a centre in Inverness, let alone to those who live in the outer isles. It would not do any good to tell my former constituents around St David's that they have to go to Carmarthen, Swansea or even Cardiff. My home is in Powys and I am not sure where I would have to go. In order to provide adequate cover, there will have to be to be a lot of centres, some of which will have to be mobile.
	Similarly, what are we going to do about those who are handicapped in one way or another and therefore cannot travel on public transport, but need access just the same to an identity card centre?

The Earl of Onslow: If, as my noble friend has pointed out, there are to be only 70 registration centres and the population of this country is nearly 60 million—and assuming a 60 per cent take up, including children—that means that each centre will have a client base of three-quarters of a million people. Is this cloud cuckoo land or is this cloud cuckoo land?

Lord Crickhowell: As I said, I may be wrong about the number. The Minister may leap to his feet and say that I have got it totally wrong and there will be 700, with an army of people going out in mobile units visiting old people's homes, and that all will be simply marvellous. All I am saying is, whatever the good intentions of the Government, we have learnt enough about their performance in such matters—indeed, in their handling of the Bill—not to have total confidence in them, particularly as they will not give us any serious facts about the costs. Again, I will not jump ahead to a debate, but we have had the letter which the noble Baroness has circulated, not by e-mail but by mail—I am sorry that her instructions were not carried out by her department because I would have had the entire weekend to examine it in further detail—and it is quite clear that the arguments advanced in it on the costs question are largely specious. Therefore I am even more suspicious when they tell me, "We have costed the provision of these arrangements for ensuring that people are registered".
	I support my noble friend's amendment. Unless I get a very good answer, I shall be inclined to press later my Amendment No. 160, which requires that there should be a report to Parliament and that Parliament should be allowed to judge the adequacy of the Government's arrangements before the scheme goes ahead.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I have three amendments in this group—Amendment No. 108, Amendment No. 155, which deals with the same arrangements in Clause 9, and Amendment No. 170A, which deals with the same arrangements in Clause 12. I cannot add anything useful to what has been said already by the noble Lords who have spoken to Amendments Nos. 106 and 107. I prefer the wording of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, to my own. If I had seen it when I sat down to prepare them I would have withheld my pen.
	As to the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, to require someone to attend at a specified place and time "at his convenience" might be taking things slightly too far the other way. It could lead to a lot of argy-bargy when someone says that it is not convenient for him to attend for the next three months.
	There are many problems with a scheme of this sort, which is—I must stop saying this—in world terms, a first. It seeks to establish a national register of everybody and involves everybody being interviewed before they can get an identity card and so on. One of the problems is that it gives rise to such bureaucratic problems that one ends up having to take short cuts with what one might call our normal way of doing things. It surely must be right that the requirement to attend for an interview should be subject to the particulars of the person concerned—for instance, you may be dealing with an old woman who is ill, or a silly old man who is ill, or a silly young man without a motor car. One can think of so many circumstances where, unless there was some reasonable qualification of the requirement, people could be put into the position where, under Clause 33—this is the other point—they would be subject to an automatic penalty. Officials are not even required under the Bill to inquire of the person who failed to attend an interview why he or she failed to attend. They are not required to give notice of the intention to impose a penalty, they simply impose it. If you then say, "Oh hang on, I had a heart attack the day before", they do not say, "Oh well, that's all right, you can appeal to the county court". No, they go one better than that: they say that the Secretary of State can then cancel the penalty. That is jolly good of him but, under our system, we do not impose penalties of up to £2,500 on people before we ask them the circumstances giving rise to the failure.
	Anyhow, enough is enough. I hope the noble Baroness will see the force of this very basic piece of British manners and allow one of these amendments.

The Earl of Onslow: It is made worse by the fact that it will be a civil penalty. Presumably the burden of proof will be on the balance of probability or be fined 2,500 quid. When people stood around a small place called Runnymede they did not expect their government to behave like that, but it is not unsurprising with this Government.

Lord Monson: I have not taken much part in our deliberations on the Bill so far, mainly because the attacks mounted upon the Bill by noble Lords on the two Opposition Benches have been so effective that there is very little one can add. However, mere silence should not indicate acquiescence in what the Government propose. The changes—or perhaps one should say the ameliorations—proposed in this group of amendments are particularly necessary in a free society such as ours. I trust that if the Government refuse to give way today, these amendments—or some of them—will be pressed to a Division at Report stage.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: This part of the Bill has to change. Again I draw the attention of the Committee to how the whole procedure will look to individual citizens. Once the scheme becomes compulsory, we simply must not tell people that they have got to be at a certain place at a certain time or there will be a penalty. Surely it will be possible to write to people and say, "By a given date, everybody has got to have an ID card. You have not got one yet, so you require one. There are a series of centres. The ones nearest to where you live are . . . Will you please make an appointment to attend?"
	We are not talking about everybody; we are talking about 20 per cent because the others will have done so already. It is absolutely essential that this should be done properly but, as far as I can see, it is not allowed for in the Bill. The Minister will have to consider this problem and get into the shoes of people in the future—when, alas, she probably will not be the Minister and will not be answerable; someone quite different will be answerable—and think how this is going to look. It is something we simply cannot ask people to do and this part of the Bill has to change.

Lord Crickhowell: I thank my noble friend for giving way. She is wrong on one point: that there will be only 20 per cent. I think she is referring to the compulsory stage of the Bill on the assumption that it follows on for the people who have dealt with the passport applications and so on. I think I am right in saying that the first part of the scheme will apply as soon the Bill becomes law and that, therefore, people may be required to go to these places to get their identity cards when there are far fewer than the 20 per cent suggested by my noble friend.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My noble friend is absolutely right. At least then people will want to get a passport, I take it—unless I misunderstand—or will want an identity card. They can, I suppose, put it off, but if it is compulsory to come at a certain time or miss out on the whole system—this is my point—it will make it worse. But of course my noble friend is right.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: Let us not think of this as a one-off application. Clause 12 states that if there is a change of circumstances affecting the information recorded about a person in the register, you are then subject to a requirement to notify. You may then be required to attend at a specified place and time for your fingerprints to be taken again; for your biometric information to be taken and recorded; for you to be photographed; and to provide any information that is required by the Secretary of State.
	What are these circumstances? Any change of name. You would have to do that if you wanted to change your name on marriage. If you changed your address, you would have to give notice; if you changed your work number; if you acquired a designated document—and I go back to the debate we had on that.
	One of the virtues of the identity card scheme, it is said by the Government, is that it prevents benefit fraud. One has to assume that if you draw benefit and you obtain a document to entitle you to draw benefit, with numbers on it, that is one of the documents that will be designated under Clause 4(2)(b). There will be a change of circumstance when you apply for benefit and when you cease to be entitled to benefit. A dog licence could become a designated document under subsection (2)(a)—it is a change of circumstance. Every change of circumstance which may happen once, twice or three times a year lays you open to a requirement to attend at one of these centres to be interviewed, to be photographed and for your particulars to be gone into all over again. If you do not, you are a defaulter—shades of the congestion charge here—subject to large fines for which you can be pursued no doubt through the Northampton county court or a similar gulag somewhere in England. That is what is promised to us by the Government. You must notify a change of circumstance—if you do not, you are a defaulter.
	I believe that, unameliorated by the amendments, which I support, Clause 12 will see the Bill off. I cannot imagine that the people of this country will stand for form-filling every time there is a change of circumstance on pain of being described as a defaulter and pursued for large sums of money. The people of this country will rise up and reject it.

The Earl of Erroll: I agree with pretty well everything that has been said. I suspect that people will not be called in to have their fingerprints taken every time they notify a change of circumstances but that the provision will be used to bring people in at least once every three to five years, because that is the period over which biometrics tend to change. They will want to fingerprint, scan or photograph everyone's iris again within that sort of period.
	Clause 12(2)(b) refers to "within the prescribed period". That will be critical. What happens when people are away because they are posted abroad, on an extended holiday or have taken a trip round the world on their retirement? You do not know when this will hit you. I hope that the system will be better by that stage than the current hospital booking system—I expect it will.
	There is an existing database that could be used to fulfil most of the functions of the proposed identity card—the driving licence database, as I have already said. I had my secretary ring up the DVLA to find out what the prescribed period was within which you have to notify a change of address. It is a criminal offence not to do so, for which there is a £1,000 fine. Interestingly, the people at the DVLA said that there was a £1,000 fine but that there was no prescribed period. Perhaps if a prescribed period was slapped on to the driving licence that would again fulfil many of the functions of the identity card, which might solve the problem more cheaply.

Lord Hylton: What the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said prompts me to ask whether the Government have considered people who move in and out of employment and therefore in and out of benefit. Those with experience of housing administration will know that this is a critical and important matter, and it seems to be relevant here.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The great irony of the Bill is that it has been brought forward by a Labour Government. I have said this before and I shall repeat it. If the Labour Party had been in opposition when such a Bill had been brought forward, there would have been not only a parliamentary explosion but a nationwide explosion. On marches up and down the country, people would have been protesting that we were losing our well established individual freedoms.
	We have heard the details of these provisions and what is likely to happen. I believe that everything that has been said by those speaking to the amendments will come to pass. They are bound to come to pass because what is proposed is likely to turn out to be an administrative and civil liberties nightmare. We are talking about the registration of 60 million people—eventually, the compulsory registration of 60 million people.
	Let us not forget that very shortly, if I am not mistaken, a national child register will come into operation. You can see what will happen. The Bill currently applies to people over the age of 16; the national child register will then be combined with the national identity register and the identity card. This Labour Government, who used to want to look after you from the cradle to the grave, now want to be after you from the cradle to the grave. They will have every bit of information that they want and which they can alter from time to time and increase from time to time. They will know where you live, what you do, how many cars you have, and so on.
	The Government really believe that this can be done for 60 million people. Let us think of some of the administrative disasters that we have had so far. Indeed, let us think of just one—the Child Support Agency. That has been an administrative disaster in every respect. It has not done what was intended; it has not done what was promised; and it has not given to women the benefits that were promised under the Bill introducing it. We recently found out that this organisation, set up to chase after defaulters, has managed to get £8 million in arrears at a cost of £12 million in administration.
	In that organisation, far from the absent parent being caught and made to pay, more men—it is usually men—probably pay less than they would have done had the matter continued to be administered by the courts. This has been at a huge cost to the Exchequer, and to the lives of some men who were so oppressed that they committed suicide. Despite having failed to get some money out of absent parents, who are relatively few in number, the Government expect to be able eventually to register 60 million people. I simply do not believe that that is possible.
	These are ameliorating amendments. They will not cause the Bill to fall. We in this House are doing our best to make the Bill more acceptable.
	The provision will not work. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, was absolutely right. The general public will rise up against it when they see exactly what is involved. Whoever is in power then—if we have a government foolish enough to proceed with this idea—will feel the electoral backlash.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: When this Bill breathed its first, I decided to regard it with an open mind and see what was proposed and, in particular, read the case for it. As the Bill has proceeded, I have become increasingly concerned. Everything that has been said today has added to my consternation. I agree with every word just said by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. When people are presented with all of this they will rise up and some of them will say, "We have never had a clear and acceptable explanation of why the Bill is necessary and how much positive good it will do". In my book, it would have to do a great deal of good and be very effective to allow for even 10 per cent of what we have in front of us today. I am appalled at what this Government have put before us. They are daring to ask for our approval for something that strikes out freedom—which is most unjust and totally careless of people's convenience or the way that their lives may be running.
	From now on, it is important that more people outside this House understand precisely what is at issue because when they do there certainly will be a sharp push against the Bill ever reaching the statute book. I have no doubt that here we have some excellent fighters who will, from now on, be fighting it every inch of the way.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I agree with all that has been said by noble Lords. I have a modest amendment to which I will speak briefly. Amendment No. 109 would make it clear that, if a person is directed to attend an enrolment centre, he cannot be forced to attend at a specific time. That is merely in tune with the general thrust of the debate. If people are to be directed to enrolment centres—one of 70 that may not be convenient to them to reach—there should be some measure of accommodation to ensure that they are able to attend in a convenient way. We have talked all the way through this Bill about wanting to achieve a scheme that is convenient to the individual and not merely convenient to the Government. There is certainly some difference of opinion about where the Bill falls in respect of that at the moment.
	I support Amendment No. 106 in the name of my noble friend Lord Northesk, which concentrates our minds very strongly on what is convenient. I carefully note what my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said about Amendment No. 160 and the importance of having a report on the operation of the scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who has been doing sterling work, seems to have waved a magic wand. Every time he mentions a phrase or word, a letter materialises from the Home Office. On this occasion, he correctly directed our attention to the fact that failure to comply with enrolment can lead to a civil penalty—a heavy one. As a result of that, we now have what appears to be a very helpful response from the Home Office dated 9 December. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, for providing us with that. I note that it says that it is an advance note of the civil penalty regime draft code of practice. It states that it is purely an indicative draft and subject to consultation and alteration. I accept that.
	However, I note that Amendment No. 124 relates specifically to the matter of issue within this letter and draft code. I must put on record that, when we get to Amendment No. 124 I will do my best, but I will not be able to give any more than a limited response given that I shall have to do another speed read on the Front Bench. I appreciate that it was the good will of the Government to provide the Committee with this copy, but it comes at a rather awkward time for noble Lords to take advantage of it.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I will not answer the amendment, but in relation to the letter, we had hoped that it would go out on Friday with the others, enclosed in a merry Christmas card—what a wonderful present that would have been. I had hoped that Committee Members would have it early.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have listened with great care to the debate and a number of useful issues have been raised as a result of it. At one point when I was listening to some of the more fervent contributions, I had a great deal of sympathy with the Committee. When legislation is drafted it is sometimes difficult to see how it will work in practice and to understand how people will perceive and measure it. I was particularly drawn to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, who was getting her mind around how the provision would work in practical terms—people receiving information and letters and being called for interviews and so forth. My guess is that, in real terms, the scheme will be much more user-friendly than the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made it feel. I understand why he wants to make it feel that way because he has a legitimate point. He is opposed to ID cards for a range of arguments that I personally, the Government and Ministers at large disagree with. He is entitled to his view. He advocates his case well and makes interesting interventions and contributions from that perspective. In the end, we have to choose to disagree with him because we are introducing the scheme.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: Since the noble Lord refers to me specifically, can we agree on something? Can we agree that every change of address or name—for a start—would have to be reported and that every time that happened the person would be liable to be called for an interview and to give further details? Can we agree on that much because then we will have a picture?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I do not think that we can agree on that. Clearly, an individual would not be called for an interview if they were advancing the information voluntarily. I am sure that they would want to do that. In practical terms, the way in which the scheme would operate will mean that people will be able to inform their local enrolment officers about changes not necessarily by having to appear in person, so I cannot absolutely agree with what the noble Lord said. There are some differences of interpretation here.
	I want to try to answer as much as possible the concern that was drawn forth in the contributions from noble Lords and return to where the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, started. He wanted to understand how we saw the scheme working in practice and that was how the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and others came to this.
	In general, we are trying to ensure that the scheme, as it operates, will be as convenient as possible for the individual—the point from which the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, started—without compromising the scheme's integrity. Amendments Nos. 105, 152 and 169 would remove the requirement for an individual to,
	"attend at a specified time and place",
	for enrolments or notification of changes, while Amendment No. 108 would remove the requirement to attend "at a specified time" for enrolment. Such requirements for the purposes of obtaining official documentation are nothing new. For example, birth and death certificates are issued once registered at a registrar's office. Up to now, the UK has been one of the few EU countries that did not require personal attendance to obtain a passport. In the context of the ID card scheme, attendance at an enrolment centre is required to record biometrics and take part in a personal interview. Those are vital elements in preventing fraudulent applications. Indeed, removing them would be very much at odds with next year's introduction of interviews for first-time adult passport applicants by the UK Passport Service as part of its important efforts to strengthen passport security. I am sure that noble Lords will be very much on board with the need to do that, not least because of terrorist threats and the importance to national security of having a more secure passport system—and because of the important improvements to ensure that we have a firm and effective means of controlling immigration, which I believe is an aim that is shared cross-party.
	It is our intention to make attendance at a centre as straightforward and convenient as possible. It is envisaged that the appointment booking process will allow individuals to provide preferences with regard to the time and enrolment centre that they wish to attend—so they will have a choice as to the enrolment centre that they attend. There is no intention that the average applicant will be presented with an appointment time as a fait accompli, as has been suggested during this debate. However, it is necessary to ensure that a specific time is agreed so that workflows in enrolment offices can be managed efficiently, and individuals who wish to disrupt the system by repeated failure to attend appointments cannot freely do so. That is why there has to be that civil penalty.
	The workflow thing is very important, too. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who is not in his place, made a point on the back of an estimate made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, of how many enrolment centres we might have. He came up with the figure of 70 enrolment centres. That is not a figure that we have published in connection specifically with the development of the scheme, but it is one that I recognise as being attached to the improvements that the Passport Service plans next year with the addition of the interview process. We believe that we can learn from that experience, because it will give us an interesting test of the volumes of work that it is anticipated will follow when the enrolment centres are set up.

Lord Crickhowell: I had an opportunity of reading the letter that was circulated to us, which specifically says that the costs of the centres have been included. Therefore, the Government must know how many centres they intend to have. Will it be 70, or has it been costed on some other basis?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We are developing our cost models in this process as we work through it, which is why I made the reference to the Passport Service's experience when it introduces the additional centres next year for the process of interviewing applicants for passports in line with EU commitments, and so on.
	The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that some of the enrolment centres could process as many as 750,000 people. I am not prepared to commit myself to that figure, but the point is that there will be volumes, so we must have a process that is well organised and well managed. Enrolment will be terribly important in getting this right—and when the scheme is in place, I am sure that we shall all want to see it working well and efficiently. A number of references have been made to that on numerous occasions.
	With regard to notification of changes, I reassure noble Lords that there is no intention that every single change will require attendance at a centre—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, was at pains to try to draw out of us. It is planned that the most common changes, such as change of address can be done via post, telephone or Internet using secure technologies. Amendments Nos. 106, 153 and 170 would allow an individual to attend a centre at a time of "his own convenience" for enrolments or notification of changes. As I have said, it is intended that making an appointment at an enrolment centre will be as convenient as possible. Individuals will be able to provide preferences for appointment times and their preferred enrolment centre. They can be made over the phone, Internet or by post. It is also envisaged that appointments should be available outside of normal office hours, maximising the flexibility—perhaps during lunchtime or on Saturday morning, for example.
	We are advised that a "drop-in" centre approach, which these amendments might facilitate, is something best avoided. Experience from public service provision now shows that people actually prefer an appointment system, so they can plan—

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but can I put him right? He talked of the amendments requiring something in the nature of a drop-in centre. My amendment would make for a "reasonable" requirement; it does not suggest a drop-in centre system at all; it simply suggests a system that has regard to the very factors that the Minister said will be taken into account. All we are trying to do is to put what he said was going to happen in the Bill, in the form of a very modest amendment. But there is a limited willingness on the part of this Chamber in relation to this Bill to accept the benignity of the bureaucracy without reference in the Bill.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I appreciate that in the noble Lord's mind there may not be much difference between us. However, we need to have certainty—and my argument here rests on the point that we must legislate for certainty. That is part of the reason why the Bill is phrased as it is. With the flexibility that these amendments would provide, in the way that the noble Lord and others have described it, we would end up with something like a drop-in centre approach, which really would not work.

Lord Crickhowell: I believe that—

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am reluctant to give way. I have made the point before, but it is an important one. If we had an enrolment process that was unmanageable because it was excessively flexible in the sense that the noble Lord seeks, we would end up with a drop-in centre approach. That would be unmanageable and wrong; it would be inefficient and would work unfairly to those who were part of the process.

Lord Crickhowell: I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said. Of course, I agree that there must be places for this thing to happen—I have never challenged that. But there is an enormous gap between myself and the Minister, if that is the limit of his explanation. He said that we had to lay down a time, but the Bill says "a specified time", a time to be specified by the Government. The amendments are asking for something that is reasonable, practical and convenient. If my noble friend presses his amendment, as I hope he will, I shall certainly want to come back on Report with my broader amendment, when we may have got more information out of the Government. But I have no doubt at all that we should press this matter on the basis of what we have heard so far.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Experience in public service provision shows that people prefer an appointment system so that they can plan their time around a specific time as opposed to having to wait for an unspecified period in a waiting room. I do not know about the noble Lord, but when I go to my doctor's surgery I now expect to have a specified appointment time. I actually ring up and ask for one, and our surgery is extremely effective in providing me with one. What I do not like is to turn up and wait for an hour in a long queue. I prefer to be told when I can have my appointment and when I can see a particular doctor.

Lord Crickhowell: That is exactly the point. I ring up my surgery and say, "I am very unwell—can you see me this afternoon between, say, two o'clock, when I am getting back from wherever I have been, and six o'clock?" They say, "We can manage five o'clock", and we agree on a time. They do not ring up and say, "We can see you at six o'clock this afternoon, whether it is convenient for you or not". If they say that at the Minister's surgery, I hope that he changes his surgery pretty quickly.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have no intention of doing that. They provide the service exactly as the noble Lord describes, which is exactly what we are seeking to achieve here. We want to ensure that a system as importantly complex as this one works well; we do not want to have unpredictable workflows that threaten the integrity of security procedures and lead to an inefficient use of staff and resources. I am sure that noble Lords would not want to support such a system, as it would not be in the best interests of public service.
	Amendments Nos. 107, 154, 155 and 170A state that requirements to attend at a specific time and place should be reasonable and practical. In setting requirements for the centre network, great care has been taken to ensure that the requirements placed on the individual are reasonable. In planning the new UK Passport Service network of enrolment facilities, which will form the basis of ID card facilities, there has been significant research and consultation, particularly with local authorities, to identify potential locations for centres.
	When the ID card scheme is launched, it is planned that no person should have to travel any further than an hour from their home. Indeed, the majority of people should have a centre much nearer to their place of work or their home. This approach is in line with existing policy for similar requirements; for example, appointments for the Department for Work and Pensions. Additionally, for remote communities and those with mobility problems, mobile enrolment solutions as well as home visits are being considered. They are part of the package.
	I turn to Amendment No. 160, which attempts to introduce a super affirmative procedure that will require a report on enrolment facilities before an individual would have to attend to be issued with an ID card. We believe that this is an unnecessary amendment. The super affirmative procedure will already have been used before the move to compulsion under Clause 6. The report submitted under Clause 6 will have to outline the proposals for compulsory registration, which will require approval by both Houses. This move will not come without further public consultation and will follow a period when individuals will have already registered and been issued with ID cards when applying for designated documents.
	The issue of suitable facilities which will affect the Secretary of State's ability to deliver the scheme effectively will have been covered in the report before compulsion, and Parliament would have had the opportunity to raise any concerns at that stage. We feel that that makes this amendment irrelevant.
	The final amendment in the group, Amendment No. 168, states that a person should notify the Secretary of State of a change in their record within a "reasonable" time rather than within a prescribed period. It would obviously be our preference that a prescribed period is set out. This provides greater clarity about the requirements placed on the individual and acts as a deterrent to those who would not update their record without good reason. It is currently envisaged that individuals will be asked to update their details within three months of any changes. Of course, allowances would be made for those with quite legitimate reasons—illness being one—and difficulties of accessing an enrolment centre. As we mentioned previously, it is intended that the most common changes such as change of address or change of name after marriage can be made quickly, easily and without a need to make an appointment at a centre. We do not consider that an unreasonable approach.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: Perhaps the noble Lord can help me. I live in Wales at the moment. If I am thinking of being a terrorist and decide that I am going to go and live in Scotland where I can carry on my activities rather better, I could fill in a form and say that I am going to live in the south-west, somewhere in Cornwall. There is no check on that. I do not have to hand in my identity card and get a new one because you are not going to ask to see me. There is absolutely no check. People can disappear without any come-back at all. All that happens is that a change is made on the register about where they are living in accordance with the form that is sent in. Is that satisfactory? Does that prevent terrorism?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord tries to make the Bill ridiculous by using what I think is a rather fatuous case. He knows that no terrorist is going to operate in those terms and those circumstances. I am not going to dignify his question with a response. I do not think that it would persuade him in any event.
	I have made it plain that not every change of circumstance will need to be reported, as the noble Lord said. The change of circumstances will relate only to prescribed changes of information that is on the register. That is important in itself.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am sorry to interrupt again, and I am grateful to the Minister, but I am trying to avoid a vote. The Government seem to be saying that they propose to offer a choice of appointments for this interview. They are actually proposing to do that. My question, therefore, is why on earth can the Government not accept that most of us do not want any more than that but that we do want it on the face of the Bill? What is so obnoxious to the Government that they are unwilling to have it in the Bill in any form of words they like? If the Minister were to say to me, to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, or to someone else, "I do not like your words. I do not like your word 'reasonable'", I think that none of us would oppose that. The Government could come back with their own language.
	What we are not happy to accept is that there is a requirement in the Bill, full stop, and that everything else is grace and favour of the current policy of the Executive. Surely we can find an accommodation on this.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This is a debate that we have on a lot of legislation, is it not? On very many occasions I have heard the noble Lord make the argument for having something on the face of the Bill because it is terribly important, and sometimes he has a point. However, we are talking here of the detail of the operation of an appointments system. I think that those matters are best dealt with in guidance and so on. We want certainty in the wording. The noble Lord has heard me describe in reasonable terms, I am sure, how we see this scheme working. Yes, we will be providing people with a multiple choice of appointment times. Yes, it will be in a prescribed place because there will be enrolment centres in prescribed places. But they will be able to exercise choice in relation to enrolment centre.
	I think that the noble Lord is getting it. We are intending this legislation to work in a flexible and user-friendly way. That is our intention. There is no point designing a system of identity cards which, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, would cause people to rise up in revolt. That is not our intention. It is certainly not how we see things working. The noble Lord clearly has objections to the language being used. However, the sorts of things that we are talking about here and the degree of detail raised by some noble Lords are best dealt with in regulations. I am looking at the Conservative Benches in particular and thinking that many Members of the Committee have experience of government and will have run many times through arguments about the value of good, sound framework legislation and the need to leave to guidance the detail and the important elaboration of how the scheme will work in practice.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Will—

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Before the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, presses me on this, I am certainly happy to give further thought to the points that he has made. We want to press on and not to waste too much time this evening on this. I am certainly prepared to have a look at some of the language that he is concerned about. However—and we can deal with some of this in correspondence to be shared—the way in which we have set out the scheme will ensure that it works flexibly and in a way that people will also see as reasonable.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The point that I was going to make is a fundamental issue. There is a big penalty in the event of a failure to satisfy the requirement. It is a quasi-criminal offence—but let us leave it as it is cast in the Bill as a major civil penalty. We believe that there should be, not unnecessary detail attaching to it, but the right of the citizen to have a choice of interviews. The Minister says they are going to give a choice. So, in heaven's name, why not put something in the Bill that makes that clear, because at the back of it is a penalty?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I invite the noble Lord to think about this a bit. Amendment No. 109 in particular—and I think this was the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, or—

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I hope that I made it clear to the Minister that I saw my amendment as merely probing. It has been overshadowed by the force of argument on others.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: "The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay"; that is what I wanted to say. If that amendment was carried it would remove the power to prescribe a time at all. Surely the noble Lord will accept that, ultimately, if you have a system where people are being refusenik about it you have to have a system of penalties. I cannot believe that the noble Lord does not think that.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I accept it. I have already said to the Minister that he is entitled to have a system such as the Government intend. I accept his point about Amendment No. 109. It just seems to me that, given the point the Committee has reached, the Government should say, "We will take this away and come up with a form of words that suits us". If we do not like it at Report stage, we will say so. But I do not think that we would. It seems that there is a gap here which is so small that it is eminently bridgeable.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord is right—as this debate has gone on, he has begun to realise that the gap is small. Because of that, as I said earlier, I am happy for us to consider the wording further, but I cannot accept these amendments. If they were pushed to a vote and passed, frankly, they would greatly damage the way in which the legislation will work. The noble Lord has already conceded that you have to have penalties in a system of this nature. I have tried to describe the reasonable way in which the scheme will work per se. For all of those reasons we cannot agree to any amendments in this group but, as I have made plain, we shall give further thought to the wording. But there needs to be clarity and I worry that the words which are offered in this group of amendments would severely damage some of that clarity.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: The Minister is beginning to move, as he so often does in the face of reasoned and persuasive argument. I wonder whether, particularly in the context of his expressed desire to make this legislation user friendly and certain in its terms, he will extend the examination he has just promised to the obligation in Clause 12(1) upon:
	"An individual to whom an ID card has been issued . . . [to] notify the Secretary of State about every prescribed change of circumstances".
	There is a civil penalty not exceeding £1,000 if he fails to do that, and yet we do not know, from looking at the Bill, what those prescribed circumstances will be. It cannot be difficult for the Government to specify them, and it ought to be done if the Bill is to be user friendly in that regard and to be certain. I hope that the Minister will be good enough to extend his examination to that part as well.

Lord Monson: I take it that the Minister is not replying to that point. Would it not save a great deal of time and trouble if he simply accepted Amendment No. 106, which is totally lacking in ambiguity and is consistent in every way with the Government's intentions as he has just outlined them?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am happy to respond to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. I shall study what he said and give it fair consideration.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Will the noble Lord explain, so that we have it on record, exactly what the civil penalty is, how it will work and whether eventually it could land anyone in gaol?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Ultimately, as with anti-social behaviour orders, which go through a civil process, or if someone defaults on making a payment, there is a possibility that they will face imprisonment. But that is not what we want to achieve. We have to have a penalty in place which is made clear to people who are determined to default on the scheme for whatever reason—maybe a political reason. However, in general terms, there is no imprisonment for civil penalties.
	I come back to the question asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. The advice I have is that the prescribed circumstances will be set out in the regulations, which will be detailed and will make exceptions and special provision for special cases. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee made no adverse comment on those arrangements.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am quite well aware of that—it is to be found in Clause 43. But the point about it is that regulations are expressed to be at large; nobody knows what extent they will cover. The point I made stands—that if the measure is to be user friendly and certain, we ought to know on the face of the Bill in what circumstances it is necessary for somebody to notify a change of circumstance.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have been at pains to explain that the detail needs to be set out in secondary legislation. That is exactly how we envisage it working. The noble and learned Lord made the point earlier. I will reflect on it again and there will be more discussions on it. We may well be able to discuss it further with the noble and learned Lord.
	Finally, the regime for civil penalties will be described in the code of practice. We shall make it clear in that, because it is a civil penalties regime, there will not be the possibility of imprisonment directly as a result of the civil penalty.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: It should be clear that if you fail to tell the authorities that you have got married, the bailiffs can come round and take the wedding presents. That is what a civil penalty is, and ultimately you can go to prison for it.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord knows that civil penalties are imposed all the time and the circumstances he describes are extremely rare. To raise them is something of a red herring.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Because I am trying to avoid red herrings, will the Minister clarify the commitment that he gave to the Committee earlier with regard to what the Government intend may now happen as a result of the debate on this group of amendments? Is he saying that the Government will go away and consider the drafting of subsection (5), or is he saying that they will go away, look at the drafting of subsection (5) and—taking into account the views that have been so strongly put forward by the Committee on the issue of convenience—come back with an amendment on Report that will put on the face of the Bill the fact that the convenience of the individual will be taken into account?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I will not go so far as the second of the two alternatives that the noble Baroness invited me to agree to. I am happy to give further consideration to the wordings that have been offered. I do not agree with them for the reasons I set out, but I see that noble Lords are concerned about the issue. I think that is based on misunderstandings and misapprehensions which in themselves I can understand. However, I am prepared to go no further than to say that we will have a look at the wording. I do not promise to bring back an amendment on the back of that, although clearly the amendments that have been moved today give us more than a clue to people's real concerns.

The Earl of Northesk: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, which has ended up lasting rather longer than I had anticipated. I also thank the Minister for his exposition of how the Government envisage the enrolment process will operate, but, bluntly, I would have preferred him to give us rather more detail. No doubt my noble friend Lord Crickhowell will have another go at the matter with his Amendment No. 160.
	Amendment No. 106, with Amendment No. 170, deals with a rather narrower point than the general discussion we have had. Notwithstanding the judgment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that it may move the position a little too far in favour of the individual citizen, it is none the less evident that the issue is of considerable concern to the Committee. If we remind ourselves that, at least initially, the scheme is intended to be voluntary, that addresses the concern on the basis that those seeking to enrol will be willing participants in the scheme and therefore will have no motive to spin the process out.
	Moreover, as I indicated in my introduction, this is as much a matter of public trust as convenience. In terms, therefore, Amendment No. 106 represents an opportunity to add the value that the noble Baroness indicated was so desirable earlier in our proceedings. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, suggested, the aim of the amendment is merely to ameliorate the tone and feel of the Bill. I accept absolutely that the distance between myself and the Minister on this point is not all that wide, but as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, discerned so accurately, my view is that it should appear on the face of the Bill. Therefore, I put the Minister on notice that I will test the opinion of the Committee on Amendment No. 106 when it is called as the next amendment. But, certain that we will return to the broader issue later in Committee and on Report, for the moment I am content to withdraw Amendment No. 105 and beg leave so to do.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Northesk: moved Amendment No. 106:
	Page 5, line 19, after "attend" insert "at his convenience"

The Earl of Northesk: I beg to move.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 106) shall be agreed to?
	*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 79

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin not before 8.30 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Animal Health Act 1981 (Amendment) Regulations 2005

Lord Bach: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9 November be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee and 17th Report from the Merits Committee].

Lord Bach: My Lords, I trust that these regulations will not be contentious as their purpose is straightforward and serves only to confirm existing policy without altering that policy.
	The regulations allow England and Wales to comply with one particular part of the UK's legal obligations in Council Directive 2003/85/EC on the control of foot and mouth disease (FMD). They make a minor amendment to the Animal Health Act 1981 to bring it into line with the requirements of the directive. Therefore they are made under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. Under that Act, we have the option to make such regulations by negative or affirmative resolution procedure. We have chosen to make these regulations by affirmative resolution as we feel that it is important to give Parliament the opportunity to debate these proposals.
	After the 2001 outbreak, a new European directive was adopted, taking into account recent scientific and technical developments and the experience gained by the UK in eradicating FMD. It has the important benefit of ensuring a common approach to disease control across the European Union.
	Articles 10(1)(a) and 16(1)(a) of the directive require all member states to slaughter FMD-susceptible animals, including cattle, sheep, pigs and goats, kept on premises confirmed as infected with FMD. The Secretary of State's existing powers to slaughter animals to prevent the spread of FMD are discretionary. They are contained in Section 31 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to, the Animal Health Act 1981. Therefore, to comply with the directive, the regulations before your Lordships today amend Schedule 3 to the 1981 Act to insert a duty on the Secretary of State to slaughter any susceptible animal kept on premises where FMD is confirmed.
	I stress that this new duty to slaughter applies only to infected premises and does not extend to any other types of premises, such as dangerous contacts or suspect or contiguous premises. In these cases, the Secretary of State retains full discretion to slaughter, vaccinate or place under observation, as justified by the scientific position and veterinary risk of disease spread. Furthermore, these regulations do not change the Government's FMD control policy, which has always been to slaughter susceptible animals on infected premises. This is due to the very high level of risk from such premises and the need to stamp out disease as rapidly as possible.
	Articles 15(2) and 18(1) of the directive also set out a number of limited exemptions to this duty of slaughter for different types of premises where the animals involved merit special treatment, and these exemptions are also transposed by the regulations. In these cases, the Secretary of State would retain the discretion to slaughter and, apart from separate production units, would still do so except in exceptional veterinary circumstances where animals were completely separated from any infected, or potentially infected, animals.
	Although relating specifically to one of the exemptions, new paragraph 2A(7) of the regulations provides an indication of the type of stringent biosecurity and separation that would have to exist to prevent slaughter. Infected premises where the discretion to slaughter remains include laboratories, zoos, wildlife parks and other similar places where animals are kept principally for the display and education of the public. It also includes premises where rare breed animals or animals for research purposes are kept, and separate production units.
	As I said, these regulations deal only with a very small part of our obligations under the directive. Two other statutory instruments have been prepared implementing the rest of the directive, including the detailed general controls during an outbreak and enabling vaccination to take place. Vaccination will be considered from the very start of an outbreak as an adjunct to the basic policy of slaughter on infected premises and dangerous contacts. These statutory instruments are unrelated to the regulations at hand, except that they contain the definition of "infected premises" for the purposes of when the duty to slaughter is triggered.
	Confirmation that premises are infected must be arrived at by a veterinary inquiry involving sampling unless the Chief Veterinary Officer believes that the premises are epidemiologically linked with other premises which have already been declared to be infected by sampling. Then disease can be confirmed on clinical grounds to ensure that action can be taken quickly to stop the spread of disease.
	Both these SIs were published in draft for a full 12-week consultation period in June and they are still in the final stages of legal checking. They will be laid before Parliament shortly by the negative resolution procedure.
	In conclusion, the new duty to slaughter contained in the regulations does not change the Government's policy in relation to slaughter or the use of other disease control options and it will not make any practical difference to the number of animals that are killed. That will be based on scientific and veterinary advice on the circumstances at the time, with the objective of stopping the spread of disease as quickly as possible.
	None of us wishes to see a return of the awful scenes of 2001. Therefore, we now have in place a high degree of disease preparedness, including increased readiness to vaccinate. This is allied with tighter controls on illegal imports, the permanent movement standstill, where livestock cannot move again for six days—20 days in the case of pigs—after moving on to any premises, and the immediate nationwide movement ban at the start of an outbreak. The regulations before the House today are a tidying-up exercise to ensure that our domestic legislation is in line with the directive. I commend them to noble Lords. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9 November be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee and 17th Report from the Merits Committee].—(Lord Bach.)

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of this statutory instrument. I declare my interest as a livestock farmer.
	Several questions arise from the presentation of the instrument. As the Explanatory Memorandum very kindly mentions and as the noble Lord has drawn to our attention, full implementation of the directive requires that two other instruments will be brought into force at the same time as these regulations. Given that, what is the point of having this statutory instrument until we have a definition of "infected premises" on the statute book along the lines of that kindly provided by way of illustration to your Lordships' Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments? Is it not possible that this statutory instrument could make the situation worse? The Government currently have the discretion to slaughter animals in an outbreak of foot and mouth disease, as defined in a way that we currently understand the term. However, once this measure is on the statute book, they will no longer have the power of discretion that they had but will be compelled to slaughter on premises where the concept of infection has yet to be defined. There is wonderful scope there for lawyers to argue that the criteria for action have not been set and perhaps to delay any action being taken.
	There is also an interesting element in the wording of this instrument in that, in spite of removing the Government's discretion to slaughter, as the Minister pointed out, it tries to define circumstances in which it might be possible to regard some animals as having been isolated. It is not stated that the Government have this power, having had the power of discretion up to this point. How many times did the Government find that premises were sufficiently isolated in the previous outbreak to allow animals not to be slaughtered under the contiguous cull rulings that were brought at the time?
	The draft definition of "infected premises" outlines a considerable number of incremental steps in arriving at the conclusion that premises are infected. The Minister stated that the Government now have a detailed foot and mouth strategy in place, but those in the livestock industry, myself included, would be interested to know at which of those incremental steps the Government would have the power and even the intention to impose a general movement ban within the United Kingdom and not just an export ban, as was imposed at the last outbreak of foot and mouth disease for several days before the general ban was implemented.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the Minister, for his explanation. I accept that the regulations implement the directive, but it is very unfortunate that Defra has put the cart before the horse by publishing this instrument before the publication of those on vaccination and other aspects of the directive.
	This amends primary legislation in a way that, I understand, is inoperable. The statutory instrument still does not make clear, as the noble Duke said, whether potentially infected premises will be confirmed on grounds other than clinical. During the 2001 UK epidemic there was widespread misdiagnosis of foot and mouth disease, as is apparent from Written Answers to Parliamentary Questions, at considerable cost to the Treasury. To depend heavily for disease control upon clinical diagnosis alone in the event of further incursions of the foot and mouth disease virus would suggest that we have not learned many lessons from the 2001 epidemic.
	We knew at that time that rapid diagnostic, pen-side tests were available. What progress has been made in field-validating these tests for use in future epidemics? I am pleased that the Government are prepared to exercise discretionary powers in relation to laboratories, zoos, wildlife parks and places keeping rare breeds and other animals kept for scientific research. However, that raises other scientific points of interest. If this discretionary approach is possible, why can the Government not exercise similar powers in other areas, for example, based upon species susceptibility? In relation to alpaca and llama, it is known—and I quote directly from the research paper—that,
	"they are not very susceptible and do not pose a risk in transmitting FMD to susceptible animal species. They do not become FMD virus carriers".
	Similarly, if a farmer can demonstrate excellent biosecurity over a long period, is there any reason why there should not be an extension of discretionary powers to slaughter, thus enabling the Exchequer to make further savings? There really is a need for a bit more lateral thinking to target the effort, both scientifically and economically.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the statutory instrument. I join other noble Lords in expressing disquiet that we are being asked to discuss this regulation, when it seems to me, and the Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments, to be the third in a series of three. The Minister is shaking his head, but the reason it is difficult to discuss this one first is that it does not bring in vaccination issues, to which the noble Countess referred, and it would have been much easier to discuss these regulations in the light of vaccination.
	Nevertheless, I appreciate the need for clarity. If there are any lessons to be learned from the foot and mouth outbreak, from which we all suffered, it is that clarity and speed are of the essence. My main worry concerns the designation of separate production units, because in the report of the 6th Standing Committee in another place from 8 December, the Minister said that infected premises were those premises that were confirmed by the Chief Veterinary Office as having the disease present. He says:
	"It would not be possible to designate separate production units. That designation has to depend on the circumstances at the time, what animals are kept and where, the biosecurity of the premises and the nature of the outbreak of the disease".—[Official Report, Commons, Sixth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 8/12/05; col. 9.]
	I appreciate that the nature of the outbreak might be variable, but surely more forward planning on what constitutes a separate production unit and what farmers might expect in an outbreak would be helpful. The best recent example of that has been the lack of planning apparent from the fact that, until last month, there was no register of poultry keepers. That is incredible, considering that avian flu has been around for the past two or three years. The Government should make an effort to do more work on what the separate production units might consist of so that if we are faced with another outbreak, speed and clarity can be achieved.
	Finally, the Minister said that the other two measures would be introduced by negative procedure. Why was this one introduced by affirmative procedure? The instrument on vaccination, which I would have thought merited an equal amount of debate, will be introduced under the negative procedure.

Lord Bach: The answer to that last question is that this amends primary legislation, whereas the others do not. I am surprised to be criticised for the Government having chosen to introduce a particular statutory instrument by affirmative rather than negative resolution. One of the other two does not have to come before Parliament at all.
	I shall do my best to answer all the questions. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. There are three statutory instruments because they represent incompatible powers and parliamentary procedures. We want to use domestic powers, where possible, so that most of the directive is implemented by order under the Animal Health Act. Those powers are not sufficient for vaccination under the directive, so there is a second statutory instrument. We have used the affirmative procedure because it amends primary legislation. For that reason we need a third statutory instrument.
	The noble Duke asked why we had laid the instrument now. The amendment will not apply anyway until the other statutory instruments are in place, and we have laid this early to allow for a quicker transposition with a longer lead-in time for debate.
	There will be no change to the existing definition of "infected premises".

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, the Minister said that he wishes to have a longer time for debate. Is that the debate about the forthcoming instruments?

Lord Bach: No, my Lords, it is this instrument. Infected premises are those that are confirmed by the Chief Veterinary Officer as having disease present under the veterinary definition set out in the FMD directive. That confirmation must be arrived at by a veterinary inquiry involving sampling, unless the CVO believes that the premises is epidemiologically linked with another premises that has already been declared to be infected by sampling. In that case alone, disease can be confirmed on clinical grounds by examining the animals. That ensures that action can be taken quickly to stop the spread of disease when the original case has been confirmed by sampling. In short, that is the definition of infected premises. They do not change as a consequence of the statutory instrument that is to come.
	I was asked about the directive's policy on the contiguous cull. The directive anticipates that such a policy may be pursued and specifically provides for a preventative eradication programme. There is no need to change UK legislation, as the powers necessary to slaughter susceptible animals that are contiguous to confirmed infection already exist in the Animal Health Act 1981. Our policy is, first and foremost, the slaughter of susceptible animals on infected premises and their dangerous contacts. In addition, emergency vaccination would also be considered as part of the control strategy from the start of any outbreak. That does not rule out the possibility of a contiguous cull if circumstances and our modelling showed it to be necessary.
	I shall write to the noble Duke on isolation as an exception to the 2001 contiguous cull, which was another point that he raised.
	On movement bans, we already have the power to put in place a national movement ban at the time of the confirmation of the first case. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, asked about the exceptions to the slaughter duty. Those set out in the regulations are precisely those laid out in the directive. Making further exceptions would under-implement the directive. She asked about PCR testing. The FMD directive requires that diagnostic tests and standards must be at least as stringent as those in the OIE manual. The directive also allows the Commission to adopt more stringent tests and standards than those in that manual. That has not been done, but if it were, the Commission tests would become the new benchmark and replace the standards.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, it is coming up to five years since the foot and mouth disease outbreak. If that has not been done, can the Minister say why not? I remember the late Fred Brown coming over from America and telling us that they were using the tests in America. Why has that not been done in this country in the past five years?

Lord Bach: My Lords, perhaps the noble Countess would be good enough to let me finish the answer that I was giving to her query. Tests not in the OIE manual or adopted Community standards are explicitly allowed, but only if they are shown to match or exceed the sensitivity and specificity standards in the manual or Community standards, whichever of the two are the most stringent. Defra is working with its veterinary advisers to study the efficacy of PCR testing. Should it be concluded that it meets those standards, we could use it under the new legislation. However, the directive permits us also to confirm disease by a link to an existing outbreak on clinical grounds alone to control disease fully in a fast moving situation. I understand that the legislation allows PCR testing, if approved. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked about separate production units. We need to take account of the situation at the time. Farmers can change their facilities and how they farm from them.
	Returning to the PCR matter about which the noble Countess asked, tests have to be validated by the OIE. We are waiting on that. I shall write with a fuller answer to her query.
	I have done my best in a very short time to answer the questions put in the debate.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving me the opportunity to come back on this matter. There is a very good list of the criteria that are used in building up a picture of infected premises which includes taking samples and sending them off for testing. One of the problems that we had in the last foot and mouth disease outbreak was that there was a delay between the samples being sent off and the results coming back. We would like to know that that delay is minimised under the current arrangements. There may be a question about whether the early results from a test would trigger stock movement or whether one has to wait until one has the full results of all the tests.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the answer is the former of those two. It can be minimised in the way that the noble Duke would prefer. I hope that I have answered the queries that have arisen out of the debate.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Partnership Act 2004 (International Immunities and Privileges, Companies and Adoption) Order 2005

Lord Triesman: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 30 November be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Triesman: My Lords, this order was laid before the House on 30 November 2005, together with the Explanatory Memorandum now required for all affirmative statutory instruments. The draft order amends the International Organisations Act 1968, the Companies Act 1985 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The International Organisations Act 1968 allows the United Kingdom to confer privileges and immunities on international organisations and individuals connected with international organisations. Orders made under Sections 1 and 2 of the International Organisations Act 1968 (Sections 1(6)(a) and 2(5)) can confer only the privileges and immunities expressly provided for in the international agreement which is being implemented. Therefore, unless an international agreement provides for privileges and immunities to be conferred on the civil partner of the primary beneficiary of the privileges and immunities, we currently do not have the vires to do so.
	This draft order will amend Section 1 of the International Organisations Act 1968 to enable the United Kingdom to confer privileges and immunities on civil partners. Section 153(4)(bb) of the Companies Act 1985 provides that share ownership incentive schemes for spouses of employees and former employees of a company are not prohibited as a form of financial assistance for the purchase of shares under Section 151 of the Act. Section 743 of the Companies Act 1985 defines "employees' share scheme" for the purposes of the Act, as including share schemes for the benefit of the spouses of employees and former employees of a company. The draft order will amend Section 153(4)(bb) and Section 743 so that share incentive schemes apply equally to civil partners and spouses of employees, and former employees, of a company.
	Section 79(7) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, which extends to England and Wales only, was amended by Section 79(8) of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, to provide for civil partnership to be included alongside the references to marriage. The draft order will further amend Section 79(7) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. This will enable the registrar general to advise an adopted person who wishes to form a civil partnership whether he and his proposed civil partner are within the prohibited degrees of relationship, as set out in Schedule 1 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004.
	The Civil Partnership Act 2004 provides a new legal framework that will enable recognition of same-sex relationships through the new status of civil partner and the new legal relationship of civil partnership. Civil partners will now have legally binding rights and responsibilities in relation to each other and will have acquired a new status, which will affect how they are treated by third parties, including the state. The Civil Partnership Act 2004 aims to ensure parity of treatment between married couples and civil partners, except where there is an objective justification for a difference in treatment. The amendments made in this draft order will allow the United Kingdom to ensure that parity of treatment is accorded to civil partners.
	I am satisfied that the order is compatible with the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. This order is important and I hope and trust, given the decisions of Parliament on the status of civil partnerships, that it is non-controversial and that it will receive the full support of your Lordships. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30 November be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Triesman.)

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. We are getting into a field that is rather novel to me and I am not sure that I would understand all the ins and outs of it. However, one of the strange anomalies is that if two old sisters living together thought they would like to adopt a child, they would not be allowed to have a civil partnership under the civil partnership law. Could one of them adopt a child, or would it count against them that they were in a relationship within the prohibited degrees in the Civil Partnership Act?

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for bringing forward the order and assure him that these Benches are delighted to accept it.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Duke and to the noble Baroness for their support, even with the question. The question about sisters arose during the substantive discussion on civil partnerships. Your Lordships' House and the other place decided that the definition of an appropriate civil partnership was fully and frankly debated and a conclusion was reached. That conclusion did not include sisters in that state of affairs. Should a sister want to adopt a child, the question would be about the suitability of the adoption in its own right, in those circumstances, and without bearing on the civil partnership status, which would not exist between them.
	It was an intriguing, perhaps even a teasing, question and I hope that I have answered it as factually as I can. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.02 to 8.30 pm.]

Identity Cards Bill

House again in Committee on Clause 5.
	[Amendments Nos. 107 to 111 not moved.]

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 112:
	Page 5, line 20, leave out ", and other biometric information about himself,"

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Amendment No. 112 picks up the theme of exploring the relationship between Schedule 1 and the rest of the Bill. It asks the very straightforward question of what other biometric information may be added in future to the Government's expressed requirement that fingerprints, iris scans and face scans should be registered. Earlier today, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, addressed a slightly different point when he probed whether an iris scan was an internal or external characteristic. My question is different, because it asks what the Government have in mind as other biometric data. The difficulty is that if the Government are not able to give the Committee information on this now, we suspect that their calculations on costs will become even more haphazard because any change to the collection of biometric data will have an impact on their collection and storage, and there will be an impact on the operation of the readers that will be used by other departments, such as the NHS and the DWP, to check whether people are entitled to the health services or benefits that they claim. I beg to move.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Amendments Nos. 155A and 172 in this group are tabled in my name. Amendment No. 155A relates to Clause 9 and Amendment No. 172 relates to Clause 12, and they exclude reference to biometric information in those clauses. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, we had a long discussion on this earlier this afternoon, and I am content to leave things as they were then because the Minister said she would consider this matter further. Therefore, I propose to say no more.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful for the noble Lord's brevity. We need to have some flexibility in circumstances where it might not be possible for an individual to provide a fingerprint or other biometric data. That is all we are seeking to do and all that this provision does. I hope that answers the point about which the noble Baroness was concerned. If it does not, I shall go further.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Will the Minister consider the matter further and write to me on it? I appreciate that it may be sensible to say that if somebody cannot satisfy the requirement for all the biometric data—10 fingerprints, an iris scan and a facial scan—it may be appropriate for just one of those specific identifiers to be required of him. I seek assurance that the Government will not in future specify other types of biometric identifiers. I cannot see what else could be designated as a biometric identifier that could later be added. I was seeking that kind of assurance; that there is nothing hiding in the wings. The answer the Minister has given us is to a different question from the one I posed. I certainly accept that what he has said so far contains a lot of sense, but I am looking into the future at what else could be lurking. I do not know whether the noble Lord wants to give a quick reflection on that now or whether he would prefer to write to me on it. I look to him.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think that, in view of what the noble Baroness said, maybe it would be best if I respond in writing. I think that we can satisfy the point fairly easily.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am happy then to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 113 not moved.]

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: moved Amendment No. 114:
	Page 5, line 23, after "information " insert "within Schedule 1"

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Amendments Nos. 114, 116, 156, 173 and 173A are all mine. They seek to set the limit, in Clauses 5, 9 and 12, on what regulations the Secretary of State may make vis-à-vis information that may be required of individuals with ID cards. I take Amendment No. 116 as a specific example in order to try to explain this to the Committee. It affects Clause 5(6). Subsection (6) currently says:
	"Regulations under this section must not require an individual to provide information to another person unless it is information required by the Secretary of State for the statutory purposes".
	My amendment would strike out the words "for the statutory purposes" and replace them with "within Schedule 1". We have had a lot of discussion over the days around Clause 1 and Schedule 1. I think it is fair to say that the House as a whole—indeed, the Government are included—is anxious to ensure that the facts that may be placed on the register under the Bill are to be constrained within Clause 1, in particular in subsections (5), (6) and (7).
	The problem with Clause 5(6) is that it entitles the Secretary of State to require information from anybody applying for an ID card, or with an ID card, where that information is required by him for the statutory purposes. That is a much wider category of information than the "registrable facts" defined in Clause 1. The statutory purposes, defined in Clause 1(3) are—I do not want to read the whole of Clause 1(3)—extremely wide and talk about the facilitation of the provision of a method of ascertaining and verifying registrable facts.
	I felt, and I hope that the Government will agree, that it would make life easier for people trying to construe the clauses to which this set of amendments relates if we kept to the formula which otherwise seems to prevail in the Bill—that of describing the right to information on the part of the Secretary of State, or the registrar, to information within Schedule 1. Then we know exactly where we are. It is possible under the Bill for the contents of Schedule 1 to be varied. We have our arguments about that. None the less, that is the way the Bill is structured. I feel very strongly that we should stick to Schedule 1, and not find ourselves in an uncertain position where the Secretary of State might argue that a whole range of facts outside Clause 1(5), (6) and (7) and outside Schedule 1 is his or her entitlement to require, by dint of his interpretation of the statutory purposes.
	I hope that that is a sufficient explanation of why this set of amendments has been proposed and I shall of course be interested to hear the Government's response. I beg to move.

Baroness Seccombe: I speak in support of those amendments to which we have put our names. They are intended to close down the wide definition of "registrable"—I always find difficulty with that word—facts specified by subsections (5), (7) and (8). By confining the meaning of registrable facts to that specified in Schedule 1, they create a finite list of information that must be provided for the register. It is vital that a clearly defined limit on what information is to be included in the register and the powers of the Home Secretary to alter those requirements is set down at the start of this misconceived and unpredictable venture toward the proposed scheme.
	The amendments take into account the remarks made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee at paragraph 8 of its 5th report. It drew the attention of this House to the fact that the power in Clause 3(5) was not confined to information needed to prove identity and extended to other matters, such as previous addresses and terms of residence in different parts of the UK. Therefore, it is still up to the Committee to consider whether the content of the power and its extent is acceptable. I support this attempt to confine the list of the information to be registered to matters related only to identity.
	The amendments are not just a clearer way to show what may be included in the register in the Bill; they also remove the information under Clause 1(5)(c), covering previous addresses, and under Clause 1(5)(f), covering previous residential status. They therefore make a substantive difference to the power of the Home Secretary to demand that such information be registered. Will the Minister please explain why such information is required under the Bill?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I listened carefully to what the noble Lord and the noble Baroness said, and I hope that I will be able to put both their minds at rest by carefully going through what would be the effects of the amendments and how we see this part of the Bill working.
	The effect of Amendments Nos. 114, 173 and 156 would be that, when an individual applies to be entered on the register, makes changes to their entry or is subject to compulsory registration, the Secretary of State would be restricted to requesting from the individual only information listed in Schedule 1. Amendments Nos. 116 and 173A would prevent the Secretary of State requiring in regulations that the individual provide information outside that listed in Schedule 1.
	The ability of the Secretary of State to ask the individual for other information not listed in Schedule 1 is important for the prevention of fraud. That is why it is there. For example, if the details contained on the application form have raised questions about the identity of the applicant, the interviewer may want to ask questions about the place of birth of the applicant's mother. The genuine applicant would easily be able to satisfy the interviewer by answering questions such as that. The fact that the Secretary of State is able to ask such questions will make it more difficult for a would-be fraudster to obtain an ID card in an identity that is not their own.
	However, the detection of fraud, important although it is, is not the only reason for the Secretary of State to be able to ask questions about the individual. Some individuals will have complicated and unusual circumstances that require clarification at the enrolment stage. The ability to ask for information other than that listed in Schedule 1 is also important to ensure that the information contained on the register is as accurate as possible. I am sure that Members of the Committee will appreciate the importance of that. Therefore, it is essential that the Secretary of State is not constrained to requesting information listed in Schedule 1.
	The words,
	"otherwise to provide such information as may be required by the Secretary",
	do not give the Secretary of State an unfettered power to request any information, relevant or not to the maintenance of the register. Requirements to provide information can be made only for the purposes set out in Clause 5(4); that is, for the purpose of,
	"verifying information that may be entered in the Register about that individual",
	or,
	"otherwise ensuring that there is a complete, up-to-date and accurate entry about that individual in the Register".
	Amendments Nos. 116 and 173A are similar in effect to the amendments already discussed in this section, so I will not repeat the arguments that I have already made about the necessity of asking the individual for information outside Schedule 1. However, Clauses 5(6) and 12(5), to which these amendments relate, already contain safeguards against the requirement to provide irrelevant information. Any regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section requiring the provision of information must be in accordance with the statutory purposes, which are themselves confined by reference to the "registrable facts". The safeguard ensures that questions asked of the individual will be proper and intent only on preventing fraud and promoting the accuracy of the data on the register. I realise that it has taken a little while to go through that, but I hope that that clarification helps the noble Baroness and the noble Lord.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, which I find convincing. I will obviously look at it in Hansard but, as far as I am concerned, that is an end of it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 115:
	Page 5, line 24, at end insert—
	"(5A) Any individual who is required to attend at a specified place in accordance with this section may apply to the Secretary of State for reimbursement of his travel expenses, other associated expenses and any loss of earnings resulting from the requirement to attend at a specified place and time, and the Secretary of State, before implementing this section, or laying an order under section 6(1), must lay proposals for a scheme to meet such expenses before Parliament.
	(5B) In devising a scheme under subsection (5A) the Secretary of State must have particular regard to the needs of vulnerable and disabled individuals required to attend the specified place."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: In moving Amendment No. 115, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 119 and 120, which are probing amendments. I tabled them in response to briefings that I received from the Royal National Institute for the Blind. My intention, when I have heard the Minister's response, is to refer back to the RNIB to determine whether it feels that any further assurances or answers from the Government could be elicited either on Report or at meetings with the RNIB between now and Report stage. It may be that we can obviate any further amendments on the subject.
	The Liberal Democrat Amendments Nos. 117, 159 and 174 are grouped with my amendments and cover the broad argument about the kind of assistance that should be given to those who are required to attend enrolment centres. Amendment No. 115 would impose a duty on the Government to ensure that the travel and associated expenses of attending at an enrolment centre should be borne by the Exchequer. The Government would be required to set out the likely costs to Parliament before they are able to implement Clause 5. We will of course look more closely at costs when we get to my noble friend Lady Noakes' amendment. This looks at a specific aspect of costing.
	The second part of Amendment No. 115 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to have particular regard to the needs of vulnerable and disabled people who will be required to attend at an enrolment centre. I recognise that the Minister's answer to Amendment No. 105 and its group addressed much of that in giving assurances. I will look at Hansard to see whether they will satisfy the RNIB. I realise that the Minister was not seeking to answer this amendment, but he adduced that the Government were trying to do the right thing and said that assistance would be given to different groups. So we need to look at the specifics.
	Amendment No. 119 requires the Secretary of State to consider the impact that the scheme will have on vulnerable or disabled persons when he designs it. Amendment No. 120 would impose a requirement that when the Secreatary of State informs those who have sight limitations that they must attend an enrolment centre, he must ensure that his order to them to attend is in a form that they can understand.
	It would be right to put on the record the justification which the RNIB puts forward for these amendments, not only to assist the Government in responding but also to assist other Members of the Committee. The institute points out that there are nearly 10 million disabled people in the United Kingdom. Under Clause 6 the Secretary of State may by order require individuals to attend a registration centre and be entered into the register. This will include disabled people. However, many older and disabled people will not be able to make journeys independently to the registration centres. The RNIB believes that the order needs to set out what assistance would be made available to those unable to make their own way to an enrolment centre either in the form of transport for people with limited mobility or assistance with the costs of arranging transport. The institute makes a strong point.
	On 20 January of this year, when the previous identity cards Bill was being considered in Committee in another place, the then Minister, Mr Des Browne, said:
	"On the question of registering people through home visits, we are conscious that such enrolment must be convenient. We are making provision to register people who live in remote areas or are unfit to travel. However, it would not be appropriate to write a duty to provide such visits into the Bill"—
	shades of the Minister's answer this evening—
	"as they are one of a range of options that we are considering. Registering through home visits raises security issues that would need to be overcome".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 20/1/05; col. 175.]
	I agree with that. It is an issue that the Government will be required to address, and I know that they are aware of that. The RNIB would welcome from the Government a full update on the assistance they intend to offer to disabled and older people with transport and the costs of transport, or whether they will opt instead for a widespread home registration or mobile enrolment programme, making assistance unnecessary.
	The justification for Amendment No. 120 is much clearer: it is important that people are readily able to understand the order sent to them to attend at an enrolment centre. Even if the Government offer a variety of dates and times, the format used to make the person aware that they need to attend has to be clear because, as we have said, a civil penalty is hiding in the wings if someone intentionally tries to get round the system. Here we have a whole body of people who may have sight limitations or dyslexia. They would have absolutely no intention of thwarting the will of the Government, but may not readily be able to take on board the directions they are given. I beg to move.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I have tabled three amendments in the same group, Amendments Nos. 117, 159 and 174. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has spoken to the group so comprehensively and effectively that the only slip she made at the end of her remarks was to anticipate my amendments on intentionality. At the moment you do not need to have any intention of failing to appear. The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness are rather more detailed and I do not know that they apply to home visits, or rather that they do not specifically require the provision of home visits, whereas mine do. I shall say no more because the points have been made and we hope that there will be some movement on the part of the Government, particularly at this hour.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord makes one error. He should not assume that as the hour grows late, we become more compliant. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord have explained their amendments accurately and to the point and I understand their import. Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have stressed that for certain individuals with particular needs and problems, there should be an entitlement to apply for the reimbursement of travel costs. The amendments would also require the Secretary of State, before laying the order for compulsion, to put proposals before Parliament explaining how such expenses would be met. That is sensible in terms of the flow of the amendments. They would also require the Secretary of State to have particular regard to the needs of vulnerable and disabled individuals before requiring them to attend at the specified place. As the noble Baroness said, we dealt with some of this material in Amendment No. 105 and the subsequent iterative process that came from it.
	Amendments Nos. 117, 159 and 174 require that regulations laid under Clauses 5, 9 and 12 shall make provision for financial assistance with the cost of attending at a specified time and place. This financial provision would have to be provided for in regulations whenever an individual was required to attend at a particular time and place for the purposes of being entered onto the register or making a change to his entry, or if he was subject to compulsory registration.
	When I say this in its baldness it may seem somewhat insensitive—it is not intended that way—but it is our view that to reimburse travel expenses and loss of earnings would be unprecedented and inappropriate for a process of this nature. The Passport Service does not reimburse travel or loss of earning expenses, and nor does the DVLA when individuals travel to take a theory or practical driving test. Individuals cannot claim such expenses when they travel to register a birth or a death, as of course people are obliged to do. Some of those journeys can be quite difficult and arduous, but we accept that when registering births, deaths and so on. There are other instances of a similar nature.
	I made plain earlier that we will ensure that the enrolment centres are easily accessible and within a reasonable travelling distance. We have plans to introduce home visits for certain categories of people, as well as mobile enrolment centres to serve those people living in rural and remote areas and those who are simply unable to travel—for example, those in nursing homes or long-term residential care. We would not seek to move a whole population to an enrolment centre; we will bring the enrolment centre to them so that their needs can be matched.
	We will also ensure that the needs of vulnerable and disabled people are taken into account. All of the facilities will need to comply with the relevant legislation, notably with the Disability Discrimination Act which has fairly onerous conditions in regard to access—and rightly so; we are proud of it—and applicants will be able to outline their special requirements when they book their enrolment appointment.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, put her finger on the issue when she said it will be a very important part of the Government's obligations to explain this process and to make these particular and special facilities available from the point of enrolment. That will clearly be a challenge for the service but, given the success in recent years of the Passport Service, it is not beyond us; it can be achieved. We have the benefit of very flexible technology—for example, the Internet, websites and so on—and we can make this work practically, which is what we need to do.
	Amendments Nos. 119 and 120 would have the effect that the Secretary of State would have to have regard to its impact on vulnerable and disabled people before the compulsion order was laid. In particular, Amendment No. 120 would require the communication of the compulsion order to be sent in a format that is understandable to those who are unable to read a printed letter. We obviously will need to address those issues. This matter cannot be properly addressed on the face of the legislation. We will have to deal with it with advice and guidance. Clearly it is in our interests to ensure that those who cannot easily read a printed letter should have a facility which will enable them to access the information.
	As to the amendment relating to the provision of financial assistance, clearly we have very much in mind making provision for vulnerable and disabled people. As regards Amendment No. 120, I can reassure noble Lords that our considerations towards people will stretch much wider than written material. We are in the process of consulting with representative bodies; the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred to the RNIB. We have had help from the RNIB and constructive meetings as recently as 2 December. We will need to continue that dialogue to ensure that we get it right.
	I hope that with the assurance that there will be further discussions and that we will give very careful consideration to these issues, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Before the noble Lord sits down, I rather felt that what he said related more to the noble Baroness's amendments than mine. My amendments are all couched in a discretionary format; they would not require any compulsory allowances, but would simply enable the Government, in regulation-making, to make provision for financial assistance in appropriate cases and for home visits.
	The noble Lord spoke about disabled and vulnerable people, but a whole group of people will be neither of those things—just poor. The 15 per cent of people who do not have passports will tend to be what are called the underclass, being poor and deprived. It will create huge problems if the Government are not able to take note of the fact that to travel an hour on public transport to one of the centres may simply be financially beyond the resources of the family concerned.
	I do not see any comparability with people taking their driving tests. We are talking about compulsory registration for the last 15 per cent of the population. For the Government to deny themselves the power to facilitate that on a means-tested basis seems like scoring an own goal. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would think about this further. I do not see why he opposes such an amendment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have to resist the amendment. I made the point about comparable registrations such as births, deaths and marriages.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord has already referred to births, deaths and marriages. As I reminded him earlier, his department is trying very hard to put that system on to computer. Its main reason for doing that is for the convenience of people, who will be allowed to ring up. Obviously you cannot ring up about biometric tests, but registering births, deaths and marriages is not now comparable if the Government do what they intend. I remind the noble Lord that it is his department which is doing this.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I think that there are 300 or 400 centres.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I agreed, although as I made clear earlier, we have not fixed on a definite number of centres. We have an indication of what the number might be; that was clear from the earlier debate.
	There is an element of compulsion in registering births, deaths and marriages. I do not think we can make an exception in this case. However, we have the facility and the flexibility to consider the needs of the vulnerable. I would argue that those on lower incomes have a degree of vulnerability. The noble Lord can read into that what he wishes, but we are intending to be flexible.
	The noble Lord says that we do not want to score own goals. We are going to approach this in a sensitive and flexible way. If we did not, it would be more difficult to make the scheme work. It is anticipated as being universal and it would be wrong to make broader exemptions and exceptions than we have. Having said that, we have provided quite a lot of room for manoeuvre for dealing with people who are vulnerable, infirm, elderly, have a disability or do not have easy access to a ready means of transport. We are committed to making a provision there. If there are other difficulties relating to the mobile centres, it is likely that we can deal with those as well.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: In opening, I said that these were probing amendments and that I would refer back to the RNIB before determining what action, if any, I would need to take at Report. I will certainly keep to that, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, I am concerned about the Government's stance—how flexible will they be in giving expenses to those who are economically or physically vulnerable? My Amendment No. 115 tried to address that.
	The Minister said that he was looking at comparable registrations, but it is our choice to adopt passports and driving licences—although if you are a young mum trying to get your children around there may seem to be no choice. Finding the money for a car is important, but it is still a choice. However, after Clauses 6 and 7 come into play there is no choice about registering for an identity card, so I do not accept that there is a proper comparability.
	On the other hand, I know that the Minister is also seeking to address the issue of births and deaths. My noble friend Lady Carnegy was right in trying to point out that the Government themselves are trying to find another way for those registrations to take place. I understand why the Government are taking this route. I hear what the Minister says about it being sensible to try to assist people, but between now and Report we need to see how the Government are prepared to address those problems.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I want to make one further point. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said that it would be simple to have a means tested approach to this, but we are trying to constrain costs. If we were to set up a system to process a poverty test for the lowest incomes in the way that the noble Lord seemed to suggest we would run the risk of adding to the complexity and cost. That is why we want to be as flexible as we can in terms of being the provider of the service and taking it out to those who are vulnerable or disabled or unable to get themselves to a point of enrolment when they have to attend to make changes to the register.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The Minister referred to what I said about a means test. For example, one might think of people on social security being given a travel voucher automatically if they have to take a one-hour train journey. That would not give rise to a huge bureaucracy, but I worry whether the Government have the power to do that without an amendment such as one in this group.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: This just goes to show that there will be some constructive discussions between Committee and Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 not moved.]
	Clause 5 agreed to.
	Clause 6 [Power of Secretary of State to require registration]:

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 117A:
	Page 5, line 29, leave out subsection (1).

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Amendment No. 117A stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil who, before he unavoidably had to leave the House earlier this evening, asked if I would move this amendment on his behalf since it leads a group of amendments which stand in my name. I will speak to my own Amendment No. 118 and Clauses 6 and 7 stand part and Amendments Nos. 133, 135 and 136.
	In my defence, I make no apology for taking considerable time in introducing this group of amendments. It is the only occasion on which I will be speaking at any length in Committee. This group of amendments is crucial to our debates on the Bill. It is unfortunate that it comes up at this stage of the evening, but no doubt that is the fate of many an important amendment. The question is whether it is right to allow the transition from the so-called voluntary system of ID cards into an all-out, compulsory scheme to be made by way of delegated legislation, or whether it should be done by primary legislation. We say that it should be done by primary legislation. It is a matter of public importance, it is a skeleton Bill, and we need to be able to respond effectively to the impact of the so-called voluntary period of registration on the whole process.
	The Government want to slip into full compulsion by way of order, albeit by the new and untried process of the super-affirmative statutory instrument. We say that process may be fundamentally flawed for such an important transition to full compulsion. My amendments ask the Government to justify the super-affirmative process itself and ask questions about how it would operate if the Chamber ultimately decided that it would be right to go down that route instead of insisting on primary legislation.
	In the memorandum submitted to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee by the Home Office, at paragraph 34, the Minister says:
	"The department's view is that although the principle of compulsory registration is a very significant one, that principle will be debated and decided during the passage of the bill. Once the principle of compulsion is accepted, the phasing of implementation is a suitable matter for subordinate legislation and the super-affirmative procedure set out in clause 7 provides an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny".
	We submit that the Government have not yet in Committee proved the case for all-out compulsion based on the provisions of this Bill. This is merely an enabling Bill, which leaves significant questions unanswered. We shall of course continue to listen to the Government in Committee—and I made it clear at the beginning that I would not vote on clause stand part debates, because I take very seriously our duty to listen on these major issues.
	The Home Affairs Committee in another place felt that the,
	"the move to compulsion is a step of such importance that it should be taken only after the scrutiny afforded by primary legislation: the proposed 'super-affirmative procedure' is not adequate."
	That was in the committee's fourth report at paragraph 248. We agree with the committee in that view. The House of Lords Constitution Committee felt that since,
	"these measures reflect a significant change in the constitutional relationship between the State and the individual, we consider that the change to a universal and compulsory scheme should not be brought about by secondary legislation, even by a 'super-affirmative' procedure".
	That is from paragraph 12 of the committee's fifth report of Session 2004–05. That conclusion was reiterated in the committee's third report of Session 2005–06, at paragraph 9, when it said that,
	"it would be preferable to separate the two phases in order that the compulsory phase would have to be introduced by primary legislation. This would enable Parliament to ensure that the legislation fully reflected experience gained, especially about safeguards, during the voluntary phase".
	Again, we agree with that view.
	The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee stated, at paragraph 19:
	"Although the Secretary of State's proposal is amendable under the super-affirmative procedure, the procedure does not provide the same level of scrutiny or opportunity for debate as a bill. We consider that the super-affirmative procedure is not an appropriate alternative to a bill for potentially controversial measures of great public concern; and this is consistent with our attitude to other super-affirmative powers and their use".
	Again, we agree with that view. Then, at paragraph 20, the delegated powers committee goes on to say:
	"Any assessment of the appropriateness of this delegation of power is dependent on whether one considers this bill as introducing a voluntary scheme which may gradually be extended towards compulsion, or a bill which provides for a compulsory scheme preceded by a voluntary stage. If the former (i.e. if the House is not at this time willing to endorse the principle of a compulsory scheme for all), then the power in clause 6 is inappropriate and a compulsory scheme should only be introduced by means of a bill. If the latter (which accords with the Minister's invitation at second reading and with the provision in the bill and policy in the memorandum), then the power in clause 6 is the most appropriate method to commence a compulsory scheme. We have taken the latter view, that this bill legislates in principle for a compulsory scheme of identity registration for all; and that the super-affirmative procedure proposed for its introduction is thus the most stringent available secondary legislative mechanism for its scrutiny".
	The Government have latched on to that as a justification for retaining the super-affirmative process. But there is, I would argue, a fundamental flaw in the Government's assertion that the delegated powers committee report gives them a free pass.
	The committee's report endorses the super-affirmative process on the basis that this Bill is one,
	"which provides for a compulsory scheme preceded by a voluntary stage".
	We disagree with that conclusion. Our debates so far have alluded to the fact that Clause 5 in particular makes it clear that the initial phase is compulsory and not voluntary. If one applies for a document that is designated, then one must—not may, must—also apply for registration in the national identity register and thereby qualify for the identity card even if one does not wish it.
	So the initial phase, we say, is one of effective compulsion for up to 85 per cent of the population. We therefore say that the provisions of the Bill do not fit neatly into the categories described in the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee's report. We maintain that any change from the initial period to that of all-out compulsion must be by way of primary legislation.
	We recognise that the super-affirmative proposal is both novel and interesting, but we do not believe that it will be the solution to the real question. The question is: would the process ensure that the legislation fully reflected the views of both Houses about the experience gained, especially about safeguards during the voluntary phase?
	At Second Reading I referred to my concerns about the super-affirmative process and whether it would allow this House full power of amendment and rejection. The Minister has sought to reassure us that we will be able to force amendments or deletions to the original report. The Minister has occasionally repeated that we will be able to force changes to be made and then that we will be able to reject the statutory instrument. But is that really the case? Surely the cat had been let out of the bag in another place in July when, in response to a question from Mr Carmichael—
	"What happens if one House modifies and the other does not? What procedure is followed thereafter?"—
	the Minister in charge of the Bill for the Government, Mr Burnham, said:
	"I guess that the procedure would be the same as it is now; the elected House, with primacy, would prevail. I would not want there to be any procedure other than that. I will get back to the hon. Gentleman with regard to the detail of how the process would work on the Floor of the House, but from my point of view it is clear that the elected House will ultimately determine whether and how the order goes forward".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D, 12/7/05; col. 216.]
	So will the Minister tell the Committee whether Mr Burnham was wrong in what he told another place? If so, will he apologise to them for unintentionally misleading them during a crucial debate? Either this is an order-making process and the Commons cannot force it through without the Lords, as there is no Parliament Act provision, or the Government are planning on the basis that before we reach the date of compulsion they will have legislated to restrict the powers of this House in respect of secondary legislation. If that were to be the context in which the super-affirmative orders were to be considered, then it would be even more of an inadequate sop than it appears at first sight.
	Will the Government today give a clear commitment that this House will have every right to reject any secondary legislation that will mark the transition from the initial period of compulsion under Clause 5 to the final period of compulsion under Clause 6 if they retain stewardship of the government of the country? In any case, the Committee's discussion of the Bill has shown that the information about it is so lacking, the costings so obscure, the details as yet so far from being determined, that even if the scheme were to go ahead on a purely voluntary basis, it is inevitable that substantial change will be needed. We would argue that that could properly be done only by the mechanism of primary legislation. Parliament is certainly owed nothing less than that. I beg to move.

Lord Geddes: It may be for the assistance of the Committee if I reiterate that the amendment presently under consideration is Amendment No. 117A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. The Committee will come to Amendment No. 118 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, shortly.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I was speaking to Amendment No. 118 in the rest of that group. I hope that that agrees with what the Chairman understood.

Lord Geddes: Indeed.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: While I agree with everything that my noble friend Lady Anelay has just said about this aspect of what she accurately described as a skeleton Bill, I rise to support Amendment No. 117A, which relates to Clause 6(1). This provision would have done credit to the informed and perceptive imagination of George Orwell. Subsection (1) states:
	"The Secretary of State may by order impose an obligation on individuals of a description specified in the order to be entered in the Register".
	Lo and behold, it then goes on to say:
	"An order . . . may impose an obligation on individuals required to be entered in the Register to apply"
	to be so entered. Not only can the Secretary of State therefore require someone to be entered in the register who does not want to be—indeed, who wants not to be—the measure goes on, with sublime artistry, to oblige him to apply to be entered. Not even Big Brother in Nineteen Eighty-Four or the pigs thought of imposing that on poor decent old Boxer, who gradually came to find himself subjected to a status intolerably subordinate to them. At least Orwell did not fashion a scheme obliging him to ask for just that. Therefore, this amendment ought to be supported because without subsection (1), subsection (2), which is my real target, would fall.

Lord Crickhowell: After that devastating intervention, no doubt this clause will be called the "George Orwell clause", and rightly so to remind those outside the House what this Bill is all about. In an earlier debate at about this stage in the evening, a noble Lord on the other side of the Chamber reminded us of a very unfortunate piece of Conservative legislation—the poll tax. I suggested that this Bill might be the Government's poll tax Bill. Poll tax Bill or Orwell Bill, we are beginning to get to the real nasties in this Bill.
	It is unfortunate that so important an amendment should be moved at this stage of the evening in a thinly attended Committee, but no doubt we shall find a better opportunity to return to a matter of great importance. I agree with my noble friend who moved the amendment that this is a key amendment in our proceedings. Surely it cannot be right to make this great step forward except by primary legislation.
	The Bill has been interestingly divided into two parts. The first part is the "we all want it because it is all going to be so helpful and convenient" part. Apparently, the great British public may not realise what they are demanding, but if they fully understood it, they would be standing on the street corners saying, "We want this Bill. This is for our convenience. The Government are putting it forward with no other purpose than to be helpful to all of us". But then we suddenly jump to another part of the Bill—to "the Government want it because it suits them" part. We heard a classic argument just before we broke for dinner on those lines. The time and place amendment was justified by the Minister on the ground that the Government considered that it was essential to their purpose to have a smooth-running Bill. Some of us consider that it is the job of this House to attach equal weight to guaranteeing that the citizen has a Bill that suits him and guarantees his freedoms and conveniences. So when we start to move from the "let's all have it and actually, you know, this is a lovely popular piece of legislation" stage to the point when it becomes compulsory, Parliament ought to be allowed to stop and consider very carefully.
	Of course one of the justifications that the Government have advanced for the way in which they are proceeding—in other words for dividing this Bill into two parts—is: "We want to see how it develops. We want to make sure that it all works in a way that is helpful, suitable and not too expensive. We want to make sure that the biometric systems work in the way that we forecast they will work; that all the things that we say are going to go so smoothly really do go smoothly, before we go on to this much more difficult phase, in which we are going to have to persuade the British electorate that it really was a rather good idea to impose compulsion on them".
	Already, we know from the debates that have taken place in this House that there have been a good many misunderstandings. On Second Reading, we had a speech from the noble Lord who is the former commissioner of the police. He defended the legislation, but in terms that made sense only if it was compulsory to carry the identity card and if you not only carried it but you had to produce it to a policeman whenever he asked for it. Otherwise, the whole defence that the noble Lord advanced made no sense at all. We are moving to a stage where something quite different is being proposed; not something helpful where we might find it useful to be able to prove who we are, but to a stage in which the Government will find it very useful because they will have much more effective control over citizens and the lives of citizens.
	I am sorry to say that I am old enough to remember the war and the aftermath of the war. I remember the rejoicing and the delight when the old identity card was abolished by a Conservative government. The abolition was welcomed because people had discovered that carrying an identity card was something that they did not really like doing, although they understood perfectly well when the nation was threatened in a world war that it was necessary that they should do it. Now I suppose we will be told that we are threatened by terrorism and by crime on a scale and of a form that makes a similar sacrifice necessary, although no evidence has been produced that that is the case. There is no evidence that the card will really make a practical difference. Before we take such a step, the Government have got to justify to the nation that that is the circumstance of the time when we go to compulsion; that there really is such a threat to our society that a measure of this kind is necessary and essential. They clearly are not making that case now.
	If it was necessary and essential, as they say it is, they would be introducing it now and at this moment, because the threat is supposed to be with us now and at this moment. If you think you have got a measure that will prevent us being decimated by international terrorism, you do not say, "We may introduce it in two, three, four or five years' time". You say, "We will introduce it now". The Government clearly do not believe that it is necessary or they would introduce it now. Therefore, before they take this step at some unknown date in the future, they must come before Parliament and justify it to Parliament not in a constrained way, not when Parliament is in a constrained condition debating an order-making process—even if that order-making process has been extended and enlarged—but in a process under which we examine, probe and amend all serious legislation, as we are seeking to do tonight.
	Therefore, I strongly support my noble friend's amendment. It is a key amendment in our proceedings and if, as seems likely at this stage of the evening, we cannot press it to a conclusion, I hope that she will choose a suitable moment later in our proceedings to ask the House to look at this issue and give it the importance that it deserves.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I wholeheartedly support the amendment, which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, moved with great lucidity. I must confess that we on these Benches are rather keeping our powder dry for Report. We have all had our go at the intended compulsion of the Bill. Although I am not looking forward to the Report stage, that will be the showdown and, in a sense, what we are saying now is preparatory to that. However, I want to make a few points.
	First, I reiterate what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said—it cannot be said too often. Without the Government's estimate of the costs of establishment and cross-departmental integration of this mammoth scheme, we are setting to sea in an unseaworthy vessel. The aims, by reference to which the Bill is brought forward, cannot be tested against alternatives without knowledge of the broad costs. At this stage I do not propose to enlarge on that but it needs to be emphasised.
	I was amused by the reference made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, to the piglets and George Orwell. Incidentally, let us not forget that his real surname was Blair. But if the noble and learned Lord really wants to get excited and angry, he should take Clause 2(4) to bed with him. It will keep him awake into the small hours because it makes anything in Clause 6 look very innocent. Under Clause 2(4) you can be forced on to the register not merely if you have not applied to be registered but even if you are not entitled to be registered. We need to consider that whole dimension of the Bill much more on Report. Again, I utterly acquit the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, of any part in that strange conundrum.
	Secondly, I want to read what the Joint Committee on Human Rights said on 17 October about compulsory registration:
	"We retain the view of the previous committee that phased-in compulsory registration risks disproportionate and discriminatory interference with Article 8 rights. In our view, the imposition of compulsory registration on particular groups under clause 6 should be subject to the condition that such compulsory registration is necessary for one of the statutory purposes".
	I turn to the issue of the super-affirmative procedure, for which we must give the Government some credit. So far as I am aware, it is a novelty, and if it were in another Bill I should be as pleased as punch because it gives real powers to this place. But one needs to bear in mind that statutory instruments are never brought before this House until dinner time—that is notoriously the case. It may sound feeble but the practicality of this place is sometimes more important than the theory. I have considerable anxiety about the effectiveness of even the super-affirmative procedure, given the traditions of dealing with statutory instruments. Of course, against that, and rather against my own argument, statutory instruments are not subject to the Parliament Acts. I do not know whether the Government have contemplated that but, if we were to mangle their super-affirmative instrument, they could huff and puff down the other end as much as they liked but they could not use the Parliament Acts. They could only whinge on about the mandate and the Salisbury convention, but I do not think that that applies to statutory instruments. If it does, it should not. We on these Benches did not sign up to it. All in all, we have had a good preview of a much rougher match to come at the next stage.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: Why are Clauses 6 and 7 in the Bill? A sensible and, dare I say, honest government who were introducing a national identity scheme would want to see how it progressed. They would introduce it, perhaps on a voluntary basis, and after a period, if it proved to be successful and popular, they might consider that it should become compulsory. My noble friend talked about a mandate; let us move on a few years. After the nightmare that the Bill will cause in the next two or three years as people are required to put their names on the register if they want a passport, a driving licence or something of that nature, and the costs and the difficulties become apparent, can you imagine the Labour Party going into the next election saying, "We want a mandate for the national identity register to become compulsory"?
	As the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, pointed out, it would be its "poll tax". It would not conceivably have an opportunity of winning an election if it was campaigning at the next election to bring in a compulsory register. So what do the Government do? They put it in the Bill by some trick mechanism that has been invented to try to satisfy your Lordships that we will have some power to prevent it.

Lord Lea of Crondall: I thank the noble Lord for giving way as it is getting rather late, but if he wants to make party political points, will the alliance between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives on these matters last until the next general election?

Lord Thomas of Gresford: That is interesting speculation. I will hire a committee room tomorrow and invite the noble Lord to discuss that issue with me.
	This will not be in the next Labour Party election manifesto. The Government are trying in this completely novel way to introduce compulsory registration at this time. There are all sorts of problems with it. Clause 6(1) states:
	"The Secretary of State may by order impose an obligation on individuals of a description specified in the order".
	What does that mean? Does it mean that it will be in steps: that, first, foreign nationals who are here for longer than three months, for example, will have to take out identity cards? Will the next step be that Muslims have to do so, or some other bloc of people within the community? The Bill does not suggest that the order will apply to everyone—it could be for a class of people. There are dangers in that.
	The clause then states:
	"An individual who . . . contravenes an obligation imposed on him . . . shall be liable to a civil penalty not exceeding £2,500".
	There is no question of intention or even knowledge on the part of that individual. If he falls within that class and fails to register, he will be liable to a civil penalty. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights pointed out, effectively a criminal sanction is being imposed. The use of the word "civil" should not deceive anyone at all.
	Orwellian these clauses most certainly are, and they are an attempt to obtain powers now that the Government would not dare ask for at the next election.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Orwellian they are not. Perhaps we may look at some of the issues that have been raised. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, moved her amendments with great lucidity. I shall attempt to respond and explain why I fundamentally disagree with her. I should also deal with some of the comments made by other noble Lords.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that ID cards will not be and cannot ever be the Labour Party's poll tax. The noble Lord may have forgotten that no one wanted the poll tax and people very much want ID cards. They are necessary and they are essential. We are being utterly practical in the way in which we put them forward. Although the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, gave a caricature, I confess I found myself thinking, "By Jove, he's got it, he's really got it". The things that the noble Lord said about why we are doing this are actually correct.
	The principle of compulsion is clear: it has never been hidden; it is something on which we rely; and it is happening in this Bill. At Second Reading on 31 October, I made that absolutely clear when I said that,
	"the identity card scheme to be introduced is designed to become compulsory. We therefore need to have the debate on the principle of compulsion now".—[Official Report, 31/10/05; col. 16.]
	That is why we are having it now. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, which leads this group, would quite simply remove the power to impose an obligation by secondary legislation on specified individuals to be entered in the register. I understand the reason why the noble Baroness moves it on his behalf and puts it in that way.
	The Government's proposals, which command significant and consistent public support, are for a national identity card scheme which, in time, will become compulsory. That means that leaving aside any exceptional categories, it will be compulsory for every British citizen resident in the United Kingdom and all foreign nationals resident for more than three months to register, backed up by civil, financial penalties for failing to comply. That is what we are talking about—this is primary legislation—and that is why we are debating it now—not later, now.
	This will clearly happen when the time is ripe. It will not happen until Parliament has had an opportunity to debate the matter, but the debate will be about the timing of compulsion and the precise categories of individuals to be included in the compulsion order—not the principle. We have an opportunity, through this piece of legislation, to decide on the principle. Therefore, now is the time for the debate on that principle. It would be wrong of the Government to try to dodge that issue by introducing a scheme now with a clear intention of it becoming compulsory but for the debate on compulsion to be put off until some point in the future. The public are entitled to know now that the Government are proposing an identity card scheme that will become compulsory. Compulsion to register makes common sense. If we are to have an identity card scheme that is universal and if we are to maximise the benefits that the identity card scheme will bring, ensuring that everyone who is legally resident here and who is economically active has an identity card will make the scheme fair to all.

Lord Crickhowell: If it is so essential to have the legislation now, why is the time not ripe? What makes the time ripe?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It is a matter of implementation. The noble Lord knows that the changes we have to bring in, not only to comply with the US provisions and the EU provisions, mean that we will have to move to the use of biometrics in our passports. That is happening now. Noble Lords know that the preparation for that is taking place and that next spring we shall start to register facial biometrics on new passports. We propose to extend that, in due course, using the better and more effective additional biometrics that we have discussed over the past few months. That is going to happen incrementally.
	We must also implement it in a way that makes sense. During the past few months we have talked a lot about the benefits of the Passport Office. It is a proven agency, and it has done remarkably well in achieving a high standard. It has delivered on time and effectively in a way that has generated huge satisfaction among the public. We are introducing this in a sensible and planned way. That is why it is starting now but the implementation will take time.
	There has been criticism of government agencies and others, during our administration and previous ones, that a scheme was not planned properly and the realities of the implementation were not taken into account. We are not doing that. We are acting in a practical and pragmatic way. That is why I say that the public are entitled to know now that the Government are proposing the ID card scheme and that it will be compulsory. Compulsion to register makes common sense if we are to have a universal scheme and to maximise the benefits that it will bring, ensuring that everyone who is legally entitled can take part. That is why it is important for us to lay all that out.
	It will be far easier for us all to prove our identity. It will also make it more difficult for the criminal, the terrorist, the fraudster or anyone to use someone else's identity, or to create an entirely bogus identity, or to create multiple identities. At present, it is far too easy to create false identities and to use those to defraud banks or businesses or to carry out benefit or other frauds on the public services.
	Before the move to compulsion can take place, the Government will want to be satisfied about a number of things. They will want to be satisfied that the roll-out of the initial phase of the identity card scheme has already delivered significant coverage of the population so that the impact of the compulsion order will only be for a relatively small number of people to register who have not yet obtained an identity card.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. If for whatever reason the roll-out proves a disappointment—there might be a combination of reasons—will the Government think again about making the scheme compulsory?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As a result of our delaying the full implementation to super-affirmative procedure, it is always open for us to look again at those issues. That is the whole point. It will also give everyone an opportunity to have a vigorous debate. If, as we believe will be the case, things have gone well; if things have been sensibly handled and implementation will inure to the benefit of everyone; and if all the issues noble Lords and the Government raised have been answered, we will have a good answer to those who say that the scheme should not come into effect or should be delayed further. Therefore, it is inherent that that full implementation date would be put off if we have chosen the wrong date—if we are not ready by the time we seek to make it totally compulsory. There will continue—

Lord Northbrook: If the passports are to be adjusted to a suitable system, why cannot everyone trade in their passport for a new one? Would not that be more effective than the ID card?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I do not know whether the noble Lord was in his place when we were talking about how the scheme would be rolled out. Anyone who has a current passport, with 10 years or whatever left, will continue to hold it. Only if they have to renew the passport before the date when the scheme becomes compulsory will they have to do anything about it. If the passport expires before the date of compulsion, they will have a number of choices. They can either apply for a new passport and get an ID card at the same time; or not get a new passport; or wait until the rules for compulsion apply. It is not the case that anyone will have to hand in their passport before the scheme becomes compulsory.
	There are issues that we have all spoken about, such as the fact that there continues to be clear public support for the identity card scheme. We want to see that maintained. In our debates, all sides of the House have been clear that no vulnerable groups should be disadvantaged. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has spoken about people who are poor and the noble Baroness has spoken about those who are blind or have another disability. We care about all those individuals and we will try to get that right.
	The scheme has made a contribution to meeting its aims as set out in Clause 1. That will be important when it comes to compulsion, as will the technology supporting the identity card scheme working and being trusted. We will have to ensure that all those things are delivered.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, Clause 6 is an intrinsic part of the Bill. Compulsion is not an optional add-on to which a future government will return at some point to discuss the principles. Supporting the Bill means supporting a scheme that will eventually become compulsory. Just in case that needs repeating, by compulsory we mean that registration will be compulsory. Despite the claims of some noble Lords, a requirement to carry a card at all times has never been part of the intention of the Government. Clause 15(3) specifically precludes regulations requiring an individual to carry a card at all times. There are no powers in the Bill for the police to require people to produce proof of their identity, or for criminal sanctions on those who fail to meet their obligation to register. The eventual requirement of—

Lord Thomas of Gresford: Can the Minister explain how identity cards will help to catch terrorists if carrying them is not compulsory? Surely, according to the Government, the whole purpose of having them is to deal with terrorism.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I have never said that it would be necessary to carry identity cards. That has consistently been disavowed. We have said very clearly that it is important to be able to identify individuals. Noble Lords will remember our debates about the number of terrorists and others who have multiple identities. The ability to identify individuals as the same individual passing from country to country is very important. I am sure that the noble Lord will remember the extracts from the al-Qaeda manual that said that one of the principal tasks was to acquire multiple identities. Identity cards will greatly assist us. Noble Lords will remember the information we had from the Spaniards about their ability to identify people as a result of having identity cards. We have debated all these things again and again, in Questions and debates, at Second Reading and elsewhere. Of course, this is Committee, not another Second Reading debate.
	The eventual requirement for everyone who is economically active to register underpins the whole scheme. The Government have always been clear that the scheme will eventually become compulsory, and our qualitative ID cards proposition research, Public Response to Proposed Customer Propositions, a copy of which is in the Library, provides a good understanding of the public's view on compulsion. The research concluded that there is a strong belief that for the scheme to work effectively it will have to be compulsory to hold an identity card and to use it in some circumstances. If we removed Clause 6, the identity card scheme could not become compulsory, as the Secretary of State would not have the power to require people to register. The noble Baroness was right when she said that this clause is fundamental. If we removed it, she would put a coach and four through the Bill. The scheme will be made compulsory by orders made under Clause 6, which would be subject to the super-affirmative procedure. Parliament will therefore scrutinise and vote on any orders made.
	The noble Baroness asked about what my honourable friend Mr Burnham said in the other place on the scheme. I always hesitate to contradict what a colleague has said, but my honourable friend was probably referring to the final way in which we would have to implement this if the super-affirmative procedure was not adopted. I think he meant that if both Houses did not agree, ultimately it would be up to the other place to determine the matter by primary legislation. But the process of the super-affirmative order set out in Clause 7 is clear and is understood by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips: each House can alter or add to the proposal and only if both Houses approve it can an order giving effect to it be laid. That order is then subject to the ordinary affirmative resolution procedure. The procedure is not yet usual, but it is precedented; for example, the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform recognised that it is,
	"the most stringent available secondary legislation mechanism".
	The order cannot be forced through by the Parliament Acts—to answer the question raised about that. This House can modify the proposal, although I hope it would not come to that. Ultimately this House could veto any order under Clause 7. So it is amazingly strong in terms of procedure.
	Even with the powers to link ID cards to existing documents through designation—for example, passports under Clause 4—there will still be some people who may not hold a passport and so will not obtain an ID card when their passport is renewed. Without this clause, further primary legislation would be required to take the final step in making the scheme universal.
	This Parliament should decide whether we are to introduce a compulsory identity cards scheme in the United Kingdom. It would be quite wrong to put off that decision until some point in the future. I absolutely understand that noble Lords will want to return to that point on Report. It is only right that I should make clear the Government's stance on that.
	Amendment No. 118, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, would make it impossible to require everyone entitled to be registered to do so under Clause 6. The amendment is not needed, as Clause 6 already provides that compulsory registration can be phased in to particular groups of individuals. Indeed, as we have always made clear, this would allow us to exclude completely particular categories of persons from a requirement to register. Thus—to give an example—the very elderly, persons in residential care or other special cases could be excluded. Where we should draw the line will need to be determined when the compulsion order is discussed, but it would be wrong to tie our hands unnecessarily by making it impossible to require everyone entitled to register to do so. Indeed, I remember well the point made about that earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, when it was suggested that some may be excluded.
	Clause 7 sets out the super-affirmative procedure to bring in the compulsory registration order, with which I have already dealt.
	Perhaps I may answer the noble Baroness about the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and its report. I agree with her and the quotation she gave regarding how it describes the super-affirmative procedure. It said that it was appropriate and,
	"the most stringent available secondary legislation mechanism".
	We believe, for the reasons I have given, that it was right to so describe it and to say that primary legislation was needed—the primary vehicle is the Bill we are now discussing.
	Amendment No. 133 would add a time delay of five years before the order-making power to bring in compulsion could be used. The Government rightly have not set a definite timetable for the move to compulsion. That would be wrong, as we need to ensure that the initial phase of the scheme is implemented successfully.
	Amendments Nos. 135 and 136 would make minor drafting changes to Clause 7 by making the report on compulsion subject to "amendment" rather than "modification" and for it to be approved by "each" rather than "both" Houses of Parliament. We do not see that these changes would have any effect, and we believe that we should be guided by parliamentary draftsmen on the most appropriate form of words. As I understand it, "amendment" is the appropriate form of words for changes in primary legislation. "Modification" is defined in Clause 43(1) as including "omission, addition or alteration", so there can be absolutely no doubt that Clause 7 allows this House and the other place to make any changes they wish to the proposal for compulsion set out in the report.
	For the reasons that I have given, I invite the noble Baroness not to press the amendments. Clauses 6 and 7 must stand part of the Bill. I understand that the noble Baroness may want to bring back the amendments but, after my full explanation, I may have persuaded her that the clauses make eminently good sense and that they should remain in the Bill. Somehow, I feel that that is optimism that will prove to be lacking in foundation.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I never like to disappoint the noble Baroness, and I shall not disappoint her tonight. I am of course grateful for the full response that she gave to the Committee, despite the fact that much of her thesis centred on arguments about not being forced to carry identity cards, when that had not even been raised in the debate. I have never raised the spectre of being forced to carry identity cards when I have moved amendments. That is not part of my argument.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: That argument was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, among others and, when I was replying, I had to reply to the whole Committee, not just to the noble Baroness.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I certainly understand that.
	I will be as brief as I can, because I took time opening the debate when I made it clear that it was a vital amendment, but one on which I would have to reflect properly on the Minister's answer. That is because this is the first occasion on which the Government have had the opportunity to put before the House their response to three new reports that were not considered in another place: those of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Select Committee on the Constitution, and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It would have been wrong both in principle and practice had I sought to resolve the matter this evening either way.
	The noble Baroness prays in aid the report of the Delegated Powers Committee. I remind her that, although I agree with much of its report, I disagree with it when it states that the Bill provides for a compulsory scheme preceded by a voluntary stage. I argue that it is not a voluntary stage and therefore come to a slightly different conclusion, not in the Government's favour, from that of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The noble Baroness says that my amendments would deny the Government the opportunity to go ahead with a compulsory scheme. I am certainly not trying to do that; I am trying to give them the opportunity to do so by primary legislation after full and proper consideration.
	I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her response on what Mr Burnham said in another place about the operation of the super-affirmative SI. She was as clear as she could have been in ensuring that this House would be able, under the order-making procedure, to have a full and final say if we diverged from another place. That was a most helpful advance.
	We must all look carefully at the matter and will probably remain of a differing view about whether primary legislation is required. However, I must end by reminding the noble Baroness gently that, although she continually refers to the clear, considerable and consistent public support for identity cards, public support can waver when the public find out what is really involved. I remind her that ICM research carried out between 18 and 20 November this year discovered that the drop in support for ID cards was to 50 per cent and that opposition to the proposal had risen to 48 per cent. So public opinion is a changing thing. We will have to see how that opinion changes reflecting on the debates in this House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 118 to 120 not moved.]

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: moved Amendment No. 121:
	Page 5, line 39, at beginning insert "intentionally"

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Seccombe, have been added to the amendments. There are six in the group: Amendments Nos. 121, 122, 125, 129, 132 and 157. They concern the nature of the penalties which may be imposed under the Bill on those who fail to comply with the requirements of the Home Secretary vis-à-vis identity cards and applications for them. It is fair to say that there has been a tendency in modern times for this Parliament to try to dress up as a civil offence that which traditionally would be treated as a criminal offence. The reason, plainly, is that the demands placed on the prosecutor of a civil offence are much less than for a criminal one. The standard of proof is a balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. There does not need to be intent in order to establish the criminality or the offence.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: Hearsay evidence.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My noble friend talks of the importance of hearsay evidence. But here we have another example of that tendency. It is incumbent on us to look extremely carefully and cautiously when we see such a tendency exemplified in a Bill. I think—I shall be interested to hear what other Members of the Committee think—that this is classically a case where we should err on the side of the greater protection of the citizen; that is, to make these offences criminal in order that they attract the greater protections which that brings.
	It is interesting that under the European Convention on Human Rights, when applying Article 6, the courts will look at the substance of the offences in the legislation and not be dazzled by the form, let alone the nomenclature. They will look at whether the obligation attracting penalties is general rather than a particular or a group obligation—in this case, the answer to that is manifestly yes. The noble Baroness has been very frank to say that this will be a universal scheme affecting the whole population, which would speak in favour of arrangements being criminal rather than civil. The courts will look at the nature of the offence, which is not as clear. But I still maintain that on balance these offences look to me, and will certainly feel to those affected by them, to be more criminal than civil. They will look at the severity of the penalties attaching to the breaches of the law—penalties of £1,000 to £2,500 per offence. There is no gradation, which would give a lower potential for a first offence.
	The penalties imposed by some of the lowlier road traffic offences, which are certainly criminal offences, look a great deal more draconian. The European Court will also look at whether the penalty or fine is intended to have a deterrent effect. Patently, that is the case, which is one of the arguments advanced by the Government for bringing the provisions forward. It strikes me that on an Article 6 test, the offences here and the penalties attaching to them bear more the characteristics of criminal than civil offences. In its most recent report, the Joint Committee on Human Rights said that Article 6 compliance can best be assured if,
	"the procedures for imposition of penalties under the Bill aim to comply with Article 6 criminal due process guarantees".
	That is the brief exposition on why this group of amendments introduces mens rea or intent into the offences concerned.
	I invite Members of the Committee to look at a couple of cases that one might have to deal with. Let us take a failure under Clause 5(5)(a) to attend an interview. As I said earlier today, under the Bill an automatic penalty is imposed by the Secretary of State. There is no requirement to ask the defaulter—as he or she is referred to—whether they were the person concerned and whether they had a reason for failing to attend the interview. That may be what is intended extra-legally, so to speak, in terms of the code, but nothing in the Bill entitles the person against whom the penalty is imposed to have their say before its imposition. That seems a quite grotesque state of affairs.
	If our car breaks down, we suddenly become ill or for any of a considerable number of reasons we fail to attend one of these interviews, we will be the subject of an automatic penalty decided by the Secretary of State without reference to us. We then have a right of appeal to the county court. Indeed, to be fair, the Bill states that at that point we can write to the Secretary of State with reasons—"I had a heart attack" or "My car blew up". The Secretary of State may then reconsider. He can wipe out the penalty, reduce it or leave it as it is. That leaves the defaulter with the option to appeal to the county court.
	All that strikes me as profoundly unsatisfactory. I venture to suggest that if the Government get this measure through in what I would call "compulsory form", it will serve no purpose and do no good for the way the scheme is perceived by the public at large. It denies what I would call normal due process for the penalties imposed under the Bill. The first and most essential element in that is that there should be a degree of intent. If someone fails to attend an interview, they should not have an excuse which makes it clear that it was not a wilful failure on their part. The absence of intent should deprive the Secretary of State of the right to impose a penalty.
	Finally, I turn to another aspect of the compulsory requirements under Clause 5: to allow oneself to be photographed. There are people—not many of them—who have a phobia about being photographed. I am not going to be soft-soaped or impressed by stuff about what may happen behind these provisions out of the goodness of the heart of the Government, or the noble Baroness saying that nothing would be further from her thoughts than to be nasty to someone with a phobia. I am not remotely concerned with that. Under the Bill, where penalties of this nature are being imposed, there should be normal, conventional and proper protections for the citizenry of this country. That means a degree of intent, and that is why this group of amendments has been tabled. I beg to move.

Baroness Seccombe: These amendments raise the issue of the level of fault necessary to fall foul of the civil penalty regime. By ensuring that individuals will be liable only to a civil penalty if they intentionally contravene an order to register themselves, the amendments will protect those who, through ignorance, inability or pure mistake, do not meet the deadlines or details of the order. The order may not have been served at the correct address or the individual may never receive the order due to illness, change of address or for any number of reasons. To impose a form of strict liability on the individual for breaches of such an order, no matter how blameless the failure to comply, is neither fair nor reasonable. It does not allow for the circumstances of the individual to be taken into account.
	No doubt the Minister will seek to allay the concerns raised here by saying that by virtue of Clause 35 there is a right of appeal to the county court. However, although an important safeguard, that should not allow Clause 6 to pass unnoticed. As it stands it is draconian in the extreme. It implements a system of arbitrary fines and penalties, the impact of which would invariably fall most heavily on the section of the population that is most likely not to be able to meet the requirements of an order and who could least afford to pay—the elderly and students being the most obvious examples.
	The appeals process proposed in Clause 35 is not exactly comfort to the pensioner who has to battle against the Home Secretary's decision in the county court. A county court summons could be a very frightening experience for some people and employing lawyers to represent one in the county court is an expensive option and way beyond the means of some people, particularly the elderly and the most vulnerable. The court system is already overburdened and all the scheme will achieve is to overburden it more. The parking fine system and the speed camera system were referred to in another place as deeply unpopular schemes. If this scheme is allowed to go ahead it will likewise cause widespread resentment and unnecessary and costly hearings in county courts across the country.
	The size of the potential fine, or whatever one calls it—£2,500—is tantamount to a criminal penalty in practice if not in theory. That is all the more reason to introduce a fault requirement if a penalty is to be imposed. Setting that threshold at the level of intention is reasonable and proportionate: it will prevent the deliberate disregarding of any order and therefore is all that is necessary to meet the aims of Clause 6 and the civil penalty regime. Any more than that and the Bill risks introducing a scheme that will be extremely unfair.
	As my honourable friend Mr Mercer said in Committee in another place:
	"We are fooling ourselves if we think that we are setting up a nice friendly system. We are talking about coercion driven by money and the extraction of money from the individual in which the individual has to establish, albeit on the civil standard, that he is free of the obligation imposed on him by the Secretary of State".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D, 12/7/05; col. 203.]
	By inserting the requirement that an order must have been contravened intentionally, the amendment would shift the burden to the Secretary of State to prove that this was the case, albeit on the civil standard of proof.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: This is a fairly simple point. The penalty is imposed by the Crown. I regard it—and it is generally regarded—as a fundamental principle that a penalty imposed by the Crown should not be incurred unless it is incurred intentionally. Of course there are rare examples of strict liability but the context of this legislation does not conceivably warrant that.
	I think I know—at least in part—what the noble Baroness will say by way of reply. She will refer us to "Objection to penalty" in Clause 34, which states:
	"A person to whom a notice under section 33 has been given may give notice to the Secretary of State that he objects to the penalty on one or more of the following grounds".
	The second ground is:
	"that the circumstances of the contravention in respect of which he is liable make the imposition of a penalty unreasonable".
	It would be unreasonable if he did not intend to meet the conditions upon which this legislation imposes the liability. If the Government are prepared to accept that, why on earth are they not prepared to accept these amendments which require intention to be proved before liability for what is a criminal offence is incurred? It is really an open and shut case. I very much hope that the Minister, with her customary fairness, will see this. I do not expect a concession tonight but I very much hope that she will take it away and come back with something next time.

Lord Lyell of Markyate: I support the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lady Seccombe, my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. It is pretty clear that a fine of £2,500 would be held to be a criminal penalty, or the equivalent of a criminal penalty, under Article 6. I invite the Minister to look at International Roth GmbH et al v Home Office. Lorry drivers could automatically be fined £2,000 or multiples of £2,000 by the Customs and Excise if there were illegal immigrants in their lorries. That case, as the noble Baroness will remember, was struck down by the courts under Article 6, among other things, a result that was upheld by the Court of Appeal. It was pretty similar—the fine was £2,000 and there could be 10 or 15 illegal immigrants in a lorry, a fact that was often not known to the driver. It was a heavy penalty. The sum of £2,500 could be a very heavy penalty to an individual.
	I support the introduction of the word "intentional" and invite the Minister, when she has time, to redraw the provisions so that they fulfil the criminal standard and put the burden of proof on to the prosecution.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I entirely support everything that has been said, and I will not repeat it. One has to think of the circumstances in which this civil penalty will arise. Clause 37 deals with fees. The Secretary of State will impose fees,
	"of such amounts as he thinks fit"
	for not just an entry upon the register but a modification of an entry, for the issue of ID cards, for applications for the provision of information contained in entries in the register, and so on. How does he calculate the level of the fees? By having regard to the expenses that will have been incurred in respect of that application,
	"expenses that will be or have been incurred by him in respect of such other things mentioned in the subsection as he thinks fit"
	and,
	"other expenses that will be or have been incurred by him in connection with any provision made by or under this Act".
	In other words, the fees will be related to the cost of the whole scheme. That the Government have estimated only £30 for making an application to go on the register indicates that very little thought has so far been given to the implications of Clause 37. We have seen other estimates, varying from £90 to the hundreds, as the likely fees.
	Not everybody can pay those fees. Large numbers of people who will be caught by these provisions, particularly when they become compulsory, will be students, elderly people or retired people, for whom fees of that nature will be excessive. Yet if they fail to register because they do not have the money or because they do not, for one reason or another, realise that they have to register, then, under these provisions, they become liable to what is effectively a criminal offence. You can imagine the effect upon elderly people who have led blameless lives who suddenly discover that for something they know little about or which they cannot afford they are effectively criminalised.
	Intention is an essential ingredient of any offence that will be brought under this legislation. I think that the reason the word "intention" is not already contained in the provisions is that these penalties are produced not by a human being but by a machine. That is the problem. It is the same with parking regulations and the congestion charge. No human mind is ever put to the circumstances in which there is a failure to comply with statutory provisions. Seeing that there will be 60 million people to be registered, it will be done by machine. Then it is left to the individual to make such representations as he can to the county court at a later stage.
	I respectfully suggest that that is entirely the wrong way round. Where there is a criminal offence, strict liability ought not to be imposed and "intentionally" as suggested by the amendments is essential.

The Earl of Erroll: I agree with everything that has been said. The real person who will suffer from this is the person with a large mortgage and little spare cash. When you are whacked with a fine like this you will have a major problem because it costs money to appeal in court. The likelihood is that the first letter will be whacked down by the Home Office because it will have seen too many sob stories. It will just say, "Terribly sorry; you have to pay up". You then have to take the matter to court. How will you afford a lawyer? If you have a nice house you will not get legal aid, so where will the money come from? It is a delicate balancing act as to whether you can afford to take the case to court. Most people end up being frightened, particularly if they are trying to run a business of their own or something like that. They will not have the time to spend on doing this.
	I have seen something like this happen with the congestion charge. If the scheme is outsourced to a private company, which it probably will be, it is even more likely to be abused because revenue will be dependent upon the amount of money raised. The company will have an interest in ensuring that the maximum is got back from it. I will not bore the Committee tonight with the details relating to the congestion charge of sending things to one address, lifting a car from another address and then not notifying you so even the police do not know that it is in the pound. There are horror stories out there about the way that these companies behave or the bureaucracy behaves, so it is essential to have this word "intentional" included and change the burden of proof back to the way that we have always had in Britain in our common law society where the burden of proof is on the prosecutor; the state.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I confess to being a little surprised by the thrust of some of the proposals. In effect, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is saying, "Don't make this a civil penalty; make it a criminal penalty". By virtue of the way in which he puts it, I take it that he would prefer non-compliance to be dealt with by way of a criminal penalty. I want to be absolutely clear that we do not wish to criminalise people who are found to be non-compliant. That is absolutely not our intent.
	The penalties are not automatic, as Committee Members know. The Secretary of State has an initial discretion and there is a right of objection and appeal, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, rightly highlighted. I commend the draft code that we have put forward for the Committee's attention because it sets out the procedure.
	The reason that the penalties are civil and the appeal route is through the civil court is that the Government are not seeking to criminalise those who contravene requirements in the Act. In many cases, people will respond to penalty notices by complying with the relevant requirements. In those circumstances, it will be open to the Secretary of State to waive the penalty and that would be the end of the matter. The primary purpose of the penalties is to deter people from contravening the requirements in the Act, not to criminalise them. The main benefits of the civil as opposed to criminal penalties are that the civil penalties are enforced through the civil not the criminal courts. The civil penalty does not result in a criminal conviction or a criminal record—something that greatly troubles a number of people. Enforcement of the penalty is at the Secretary of State's own discretion. He would have to issue a claim in the county court. If the person belatedly complied with the relevant requirement, it would be open to the Secretary of State to waive the penalty. Non-payment of the penalty could not result in the person going to prison—imprisonment for debt was abolished by the Debtors Act 1869. There are certain exceptions to that principle, but a civil penalty under the Identity Cards Bill would not fall within any of those exceptions.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Does the Minister dispute that this penalty is a punishment?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: If the noble and learned Lord is asking whether it could be described as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, says, as bringing to bear Article 6, I can see that there is an argument for that. But even if there were, the scheme that we are now proposing would deal with that; with legal aid and the procedures that we have set in place, there would be a fair trial and an opportunity to be represented. All those things will be complied with. But let me make it absolutely clear—

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I believe that—

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am not going to give way until I have finished answering the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, because that is courteous to him.
	We do not wish to criminalise people, and we do not believe that that would be the purpose of doing this. The procedure that we have set out will enable us to deal with it as a civil matter in a way that makes sense. I shall give way in a moment, but I want to deal with the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, on the carriers' case, and assure him that his understanding is not quite as he has said it. The procedures that we have included as regards civil penalties in this Bill take into account the Roth case and would therefore be fully compliant.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I know that I do not have to say what I am about to say, and that she appreciates it, but I say it for the record. There is an enormous distinction between procedure of due process that has in it a presumption of innocence and which requires the prosecution to prove its case—that is, a criminal charge—and the system that the Minister proposes, whereby you are absolutely liable. Intention does not come into it under this scheme; you are liable for a penalty, and you cannot try to excuse yourself before a court. There is all the difference in the world between the civil and criminal approach.
	As the noble and learned Lord said, when penalties are as high as £2,500 or £1,500, it bears no relation at all to any amount by which the state suffers by reason of a person failing to fill in a form. That has to be a punishment for failing to fill in a form and send it off. It is not a civil penalty that has any connection at all with any loss to the state.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It is a penalty. Both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, know full well that in relation to setting a penalty or fee or—if this were to be a criminal offence—the maximum fine, the maximum fine is not necessarily the fine that will be imposed. You could have a fine of anything from a penny to £2,500, which is the maximum; all that setting the maximum does is to say that you cannot have a fine—or in this case a penalty—that exceeds that amount. That is the first point.
	Secondly—and I say this so that noble Lords absolutely understand it—the Government do not wish people to be criminalised. Most ordinary, decent people take a criminal conviction very seriously indeed. If you were to ask them whether they would be more content to have a criminal conviction or a civil penalty, I very much doubt that your Lordships would find many of them putting their hands up and wanting to be made criminals as a result of doing this. We need to take that very seriously indeed, because members of the public will take it very seriously.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: What the Minister describes relates to the means by which the punishment can be enforced; it does not relate to the character of the penalty, which is a punishment—as she has virtually conceded. The punishment is criminal in character and, accordingly, ought not to be able to be imposed save on proof of intention. That is what we are on about—and I am afraid that I have not grasped that the Minister has herself grasped that.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: Surely the public are readier to accept a punishment for a person who intentionally fails to carry out their obligation or breaches the terms of the legislation, rather than one for a person who has to pay a penalty even though they do not know anything about their liability to register, to send in particulars of change of address, or whatever else.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I know that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has not had an opportunity to look at the draft code, but that is why we have made it available—so that Members of the Committee will understand how we intend to deal with that matter.
	I assure noble Lords that every effort will be made to ensure that those affected by the requirement know exactly what is expected of them and to warn them that failure to comply may be penalised. The order made under Clause 6 will be very widely publicised. The process under Clause 7 is likely itself to give rise to extensive public discussion. Every effort will be made to contact those affected by an order to inform them of their requirement to register and there will be a clearly publicised timetable before any requirement to register comes into force. So a failure to comply will not necessarily lead to a penalty notice, as I said. However, the civil penalty regime is a different form. We have set out the draft so that noble Lords could have a better idea of how it will work and be able to comment on that.
	At the stage at which a civil penalty notice is issued, the Secretary of State will not normally know what the state of mind of the person concerned is, only that he or she has not complied after efforts have been made to notify them and after there has not been a response. At that stage, fairness to the individual who did not in fact know of the requirement; or did know and intended to comply but did not do so for some good reason, is built into the statutory scheme at the objection and appeal stage. Clauses 34 and 35 provide that one of the grounds of objection and appeal is that imposition of a penalty is unreasonable in all the circumstances. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, made clear, she wants to ensure that people who are not deliberately trying to be difficult—they are not members of the awkward squad or trying to cause difficulties; they just have not known about it and it has not come to their attention—are not caught. I agree with her.
	Our purpose in setting up the scheme is to try to ensure that those people are not disadvantaged. The fact that someone was unaware of a requirement will make it unreasonable that any penalty should be imposed. Clause 36 provides for a code of practice setting out the matters that the Secretary of State and the courts will take into account when considering civil penalties. The code of practice will be laid before Parliament before the first identity cards are issued at the end of 2008. So we have lots of time to look at the code. I just thought it was important that we had a draft so that Members of the Committee could have a look at it and consider whether it is the sort of thing that would make them feel easier.
	I make it clear that that was the basis on which we have done it. We have said in the code:
	"If there is genuine doubt as to whether the person concerned was aware of the requirement, any penalty imposed should normally be cancelled. This may be because they had no notice of the requirement or because they were not able to understand it due to language difficulties, illiteracy or lack of intellectual capacity".
	So we have put those issues in the code for the very sensible reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, highlighted: because we do not want that to be an undue burden.
	I can therefore assure noble Lords that where non-compliance appears to be unintentional or an individual has subsequently complied with the requirement, any penalty should normally be waived. That is what we want to happen. The draft code of practice goes on to say at paragraph 6.9:
	"As the purpose of the penalty scheme is to encourage compliance rather than to punish, it will usually be appropriate to cancel the penalty if the individual has complied with the relevant requirement by the time the objection or appeal is considered. Mere lateness should not generally lead to a penalty unless it is both deliberate and prolonged or repeated".
	I know that that is what the Committee is worried and concerned about, and the amendments are a good prompt for me to clarify why certain aspects of the scheme are being backed up by civil, not criminal penalties. The primary reason is that we do not consider that failure to register or failure to comply with related requirements should attract the full opprobrium of criminal law. We are not seeking to make criminals out of people who are not compliant; rather we are seeking to coax them into complying. The first stage of challenge to a civil penalty would be an objection to the Secretary of State. At that stage the courts would not be involved at all. There will also be a right to appeal to the county court or sheriff. The matter will at all times be kept out of the criminal courts and will not give rise to a criminal record. Should a person refuse to pay, the subsequent debt recovery proceedings would also be a matter for the civil courts. The methods by which a civil debt may be enforced do not include imprisonment. I believe that we have achieved the right balance in the Bill for the civil penalties.
	I promised to deal with the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell. He made reference to the carriers situation. That is a clear example of where we have used a similar procedure before. Similar penalties were imposed in relation to a carriers' liabilities scheme in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. It is normal with civil penalties for the objection and appeal stage to come after the imposition. It is true that the courts in the Roth case were critical of one aspect of the carriers' liability scheme—the fact that there was no discretion for the Secretary of State as to the amount of the penalty, but the courts confirmed that a civil penalty scheme is lawful and is compliant with Article 6. The scheme in this Bill is based on the scheme as amended in the light of the Roth judgment. The current carriers' liability scheme has been ruled compliant by the courts with ECHR rights. I have made it clear that we will comply, even on a civil scheme, with Article 6. To finish with—

Lord Lyell of Markyate: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She makes a good point about a civil penalty as opposed to a criminal penalty. It is really a question of the procedural safeguards when you get to court. The burden of proof should be on the Crown or the equivalent—the Home Office—rather than on the citizen. The other rules that normally apply in the criminal court should apply. After all, that is the way that the European Court of Human Rights approaches Article 6 in this respect. It is not that it minds so much exactly what things are called; it is concerned with the substance of the protections. The amendments that are before us now focus on the substance of the protections and I hope that the noble Baroness will be sympathetic to that. They would do the Home Secretary no harm and they would seriously relieve citizens of potential injustice.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble and learned Lord knows that Article 6 does not require a particular standard of proof. As a matter of domestic law, the normal standard of proof in civil proceedings will be on the balance of probabilities. The noble and learned Lord also knows that, dependent on the nature of the assertion one has to prove, that burden becomes weightier. If the issue that one has to prove is small and light, the burden on the balance of probabilities is commensurate with that. If the issue at large is heavier and goes nearer to the criminal standard, or the importance of it, the difference between the balance of probabilities and the burden of proof can sometimes be very much the same. I know that the noble and learned Lord is only too familiar with that.
	Where a penal sanction is involved, the courts may take the view—as in relation to anti-social behaviour orders—that although the proceedings are civil, an equivalent to the criminal standard is appropriate. In civil penalties for failure to register, the distinction is likely to be academic. That will be generally apparent. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for agreeing with me that the civil and not the criminal penalty is the better one to address the nature of this issue. I assure the Committee that penalties will not be issued by a machine. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that the Secretary of State has discretion as to whether to impose a penalty. He must first be satisfied as to liability. That requires a human mind. I commend Clauses 33 and 36 and the draft code of practice in that regard. I really do think that a civil penalty is far better. I confess that I am rather alarmed by the suggestion that we should set about criminalising people in relation to this; very alarmed indeed.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I—

Lord Lucas: I am perturbed by this Government's proposal that we should adopt a "Shoot first and ask questions afterwards" approach to penalties. It is not civilised, and it will not be a comfortable kind of country in which to live if that becomes the general practice. It has always been the practice in this country to have penalties that start low and escalate, even in cases such as non-payment of taxes where the citizen is not suffering any inconvenience by non-compliance. You are faced with a £100 fine for being late, and it gets more serious if you continue in default. That seems to be the ordinary and civilised way of doing things. Having read the code of practice that has so generously been provided, it is clear that the intention is to impose the maximum fine—I have read it and if that was not the intention it should not have been written in that way—and on later application possibly to allow mitigation. That is putting the frighteners on. It is a seriously unpleasant way to proceed, and it is destructive of civil society.
	I also do not really understand the noble Baroness's objection to criminalising things like this. I suspect that most of us in this House are criminals because we have had road traffic contraventions at some time in our lives. One disregards those as nothing in particular; you pay the fine, you go on your way and you accept the penalties. I have not noticed that it has ever been any serious disadvantage to my life that I have one of those to my discredit. I do not think that a penalty under this Act would be regarded any more seriously than that.

Lord Lyell of Markyate: I—

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Since I hope it is on the same point, I shall just answer the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I read it out, but I do not know whether I read clearly enough. Paragraph 6.15 makes it absolutely clear that the intention is not to impose the maximum fine.

Lord Lyell of Markyate: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said, but we are still in unfinished business here. She rightly discoursed on the closeness that can sometimes apply in civil cases where an application of a quasi-criminal burden of proof is sensibly applied. I still think, as she has persuaded me this far, that there is a good deal to be said for having a civil penalty, but we really have to look closely at the procedures. I will try to focus on this before we get to Report stage, and I hope that she might have time to do the same.
	We are in a very complex area here, and there is always a danger of slipping back into Second Reading speeches. When one looks at Clause 37 under "Fees and Charges", one is reminded of the song in "Les Misérables" called "Master of the House", where one is charging for everything that happens in the hotel; tuppence for the mouse and so on. It is going to get very expensive, people are going to make a very great many mistakes, and they are going to find themselves issued with penalties. It really is important that we try to devise a system that is sensible for the Home Office to use and not oppressive to the citizen. I hope that we may revert to it.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am immensely grateful for the many helpful contributions to this part of the evening's entertainment. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response. Her assumption that I was rushing towards criminal convictions is wholly misconceived. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, made the point that you can have a burden of proof in civil proceedings that more nearly equates to that applicable in criminal proceedings, and that is precisely what I am looking for. I am not looking to criminalise or anything of that kind, and I take the Government's point in that regard. We can all think about this matter before Report, but at the moment there is some distance between the Government and those who have spoken in favour of this group of amendments.
	This is somewhat reminiscent of our earlier discussion about whether the requirement of the Secretary of State to attend an interview should be subject to a reasonableness test. It is rather on those lines, and I feel that it is not good enough to leave the matter as it is. It is all very well to say that the code of practice gives the Secretary of State discretion to do this or that and to consider this or that but, at root, there needs to be something in the Bill that makes it clear that intent is relevant to culpability. Indeed, in the noble Baroness's own justification for the Government's position she used the word "intentional" a number of times. That is natural because without intentionality there is no intention—to use the word again—to impose penalties. So why not put it in the Bill? I shall go on no further at ten to eleven but will join the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, and others—and, I hope, the Government—in reviewing this matter because I do not think that it is satisfactory as left. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 123 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: moved Amendment No. 124:
	Page 5, line 44, leave out "£2,500" and insert "£100"

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: This group of amendments—

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I invite the noble Lord to consider withdrawing this amendment as there is a great danger that we will go over much the same ground. I do not know whether the noble Lord has thought about it in those terms.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I was proposing to move this amendment in about 60 seconds because the issue is simple. We think that these penalties are substantially too great. We have proposed rather silly counters and this is not a bargaining game, although it may look like it. I do not stand by any of the replacement figures—changing £1,000 to £50 and so on. I am simply trying to bring into play the thought that the penalties here are too high across the board and to encourage the Government to think in terms of first offence and second offence penalties. I think we all accept that when someone is incorrigible and simply refuses to do what is reasonable in terms of attending an interview or whatever, he or she should cop it the second time round, but not the first time round. I leave it at that. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his rapid introduction because I think that we went over a lot of this in earlier amendments. The noble Lord is right. We could not possibly agree to a bargaining game in your Lordships' Chamber in the way that the amendment invites us to do. I simply invite the noble Lord to consider that any major reduction in the penalties of the order suggested would hardly be said to be a deterrent. In any event, it will be for the court to consider. The amounts will be imposed on a case-by-case basis having regard to the circumstances, and those will obviously be some of the matters that were raised in our earlier debate.
	My noble friend Lady Scotland referred to paragraph 16, and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, raised the issue of the degree of compliance. He is right that at the first instance one would not expect the upper end of the penalty to be imposed, but if there were a failure to conform on subsequent occasions of course one would expect the penalties to increase, and that is exactly what the draft code of practice says at paragraph 6.15. The end of that paragraph states:
	"If the contravention is particularly serious or there is a history of previous contraventions, the penalty may be increased accordingly".
	That is how we intend it to work. We would not initially expect the penalty to be imposed at the top end. We cannot see that reducing the penalties would in any way be a form of deterrent. We rely on the deterrent because it is an important part of the package. People need to understand that contravention is serious. I understand why the noble Lord has moved the amendment, but we cannot agree to it. He understands that and we think that we have the maximum penalties about right.
	The code of practice is important in terms of interpretation and I would expect it to work well in those circumstances. Given the code of practice, the noble Lord should feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the noble Lord, but I am disappointed that he did not at least refer to the idea that one might have a first offence/subsequent offence arrangement. That would take some of the steam out of this debate. I do not see what would be lost. Will the Minister comment on that?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: That was why I quoted the code. The code is a draft so in a sense this is a consultation, but perhaps the noble Lord thinks that other words could usefully be put into paragraph 6.15 that make the point better. The paragraph states:
	"As a general guideline, where it appears that an individual is liable to a penalty and that it is reasonable in the circumstances to impose one, the Secretary of State would regard a figure of one quarter of the maximum penalty as appropriate. That figure may be further reduced if appropriate e.g. if there are mitigating circumstances".
	So we have a gradation in mind. Perhaps we can reflect on the wording of the code as it is in draft form, but that is its intention.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I was doing my best not to intervene on this group of amendments, but it would be helpful if the Minister would reflect further on the drafting. Will he take into account the very helpful moves that the Government made in respect of a code of practice in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill, which we debated last week at Second Reading, regarding penalties upon employers who employ those who should not be employed? I am sure that his noble friend Lady Ashton would acquaint him with the elucidation that the Government have carried out on that. I appreciate that the code of practice in this Bill is in draft form and perhaps there may be ways of accommodating the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and by my noble friends without being counterproductive to the Government's intentions.

Lord Lucas: Yes, but £750 for not turning up to an interview compared with £100 for being eight months late in filling in your tax return is a swingeing fine that is totally out of proportion. It is unreasonable to impose that sort of penalty for that sort of offence. According to the Government, an identity card is supposed to be something that we all want and would find great use for. Why should we impose such an enormous penalty for not doing something that we should be doing for our own benefit anyway? It should not require that kind of incentive to shift people into compliance.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for her comments. Although I am not familiar with the detail, I am aware of the discussions on the code relating to the IAN Bill. This Bill does not have to be in place until 2008, so there is plenty of time to reflect on the points that have been made.
	Regarding the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, it simply will not do to set up a system that does not encourage compliance. We must accept that there will be people who play the role of refuseniks and a penalty scheme is in process to ensure that we get maximum compliance. We would be foolish to have a system that worked in any other way. As to the level of penalty that the court ultimately imposes, we need guidance that makes it clear that the position gets more serious as breaches accumulate. That is a good principle, but I am sure that we can think a little more about how we make it clear to people that non-compliance will not be acceptable.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful for those exchanges and I shall think on it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 125 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 126 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	[Amendment No. 127 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 128 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	[Amendment No. 129 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 130 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	[Amendments Nos. 131 and 132 not moved.]
	Clause 6 agreed to.
	Clause 7 [Procedure for orders under s. 6]:
	[Amendment No. 133 not moved.]

The Earl of Northesk: moved Amendment No. 134:
	Page 6, line 20, at end insert "; and
	( ) an appropriate review of the operation of the voluntary ID card scheme has been conducted under the auspices of the National Identity Scheme Commissioner and reported to Parliament."

The Earl of Northesk: I hope this amendment is relatively straightforward. While emphasising the intention to move ultimately to a compulsory scheme, the Government make much of their claims that enrolment onto the national identity register is to be voluntary in the first instance. Indeed, as I have already suggested, this has been the primary mechanism for engendering public acceptance of the proposition. However, once the Bill is enacted, there is very little on its face to constrain the Secretary of State from making immediate application for it to become compulsory. At the very least, any move towards compulsion needs to be informed by independent analysis of the experience of the voluntary scheme, something that the national identity scheme commissioner would be ideally placed to provide. The Minister, at least in part, agrees with the point. As she said at Second Reading,
	"government will need to be satisfied that initial rollout of identity cards has been a success before moving to compulsion".—[Official Report, 31/10/05; col. 113.]
	That is a sensible and proportionate way forward. Moreover, given that our debates on the Bill have revealed manifest concerns about costs, technology and a host of other matters, the argument in favour of a thorough review of the scheme before moving to compulsion is that much more persuasive. That is what the amendment provides. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I welcome my noble friend's amendment. Of course, he will be aware that I would rather an order did not have to be made and that this change should be made by primary legislation, but if the Committee eventually agrees to the super-affirmative procedure, then the discipline introduced by my noble friend's Amendment No. 134 would be welcome.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I would like to identify myself with this extremely sensible suggestion. It would be a good prelude to a more effective compulsory stage.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand the purport of the amendment. Of course, we shall want to listen to the views of the national identity scheme commissioner. I would expect that she or he will wish to comment on plans for compulsion. We do not believe that it would be right to provide a requirement in primary legislation that Ministers should have to await a review by the commissioner before being able to make a compulsion order using the super-affirmative resolution procedure in Clause 7. We believe that that would add unnecessary delay and, while we have no intention of rushing plans for compulsion, the process of the super-affirmative order itself will be bound to take some time to complete.
	Of course, I am not saying that we would not benefit from the views of the national identity scheme commissioner. As I have indicated, we would wish to know the commissioner's views and any report that the national identity scheme commissioner produced would be laid before Parliament for its consideration. However, for the reasons that I have given, we do not think that we should be bound to wait for such a report from the commissioner before the Secretary of State could make a compulsion order using the super-affirmative resolution procedure under Clause 7. Therefore, I ask the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.

The Earl of Northesk: As ever, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply, although I am a little confused by it. She talks about delay being imposed on the Government. One of the features of our debates is that the whole Bill has built-in delays. I singularly fail to understand that argument. I fail to understand, bluntly, why the national identity scheme commissioner should not inform the process of the move to compulsion and be required so to do in statute. It seems to me a perfectly logical and acceptable proposition. I regret to say that I am unconvinced by the Minister's arguments in response to the amendment and I feel the obligation to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 134) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 50

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendments Nos. 135 and 136 not moved.]

Lord Lea of Crondall: moved Amendment No. 137:
	Page 7, line 7, at end insert—
	"( ) The Secretary of State, before making an order containing any provision for compulsory registration, must consult on whether, and the extent to which, this requires him to regularise the status of foreign nationals residing in the United Kingdom without entitlement to remain."

Lord Lea of Crondall: In moving Amendment No. 137 I shall seek to demonstrate why the Secretary of State will need to develop a procedure and, in turn, to consult on such a procedure for regularising the position of foreign nationals residing in the United Kingdom without entitlement to remain—in other words, illegal immigrants.
	The Bill, along with the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill, radically changes the context in which this question has to be considered. The Home Office produced an invaluable study in June called Sizing the unauthorised (illegal) migrant population in the United Kingdom in 2001. In estimating the number for 2001, the methodology was to subtract from the central estimate of 3.6 million—that is the total foreign-born population—the total legal foreign-born population of 3.2 million. The result was a central estimate of 430,000. Given developments since then, the usual figure bandied about is 500,000; that is, 0.5 million.
	The Minister, Tony McNulty, said at that time that this is only an estimate and should not be seen as a definitive figure. It is a useful contribution to the debate and underlines the need for a robust ID card system which will, among other benefits, help to tackle illegal working and immigration. Let us assume, for argument's sake that about half of the 0.5 million—250,000—will ultimately have their position regularised. I note that the Explanatory Notes, in dealing with Clause 5(3), say:
	"For example, third country nationals may be required to provide information regarding their immigration status".
	Amendment No. 137 reflects the fact that the enactment of this Bill will catalyse a substantial programme of regularising the position of thousands of illegal immigrants.
	At Second Reading last week on the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill the noble Lord, Lord Chan, took the example of the number—probably more than 100,000—of people working in Chinese restaurants whose status may not so far have been inquired into too closely, under the traditional social contract in Britain, which will now have to be changed, that people's status is not of much concern to the authorities.
	Similarly, we have the regularisation taking place in conjunction with the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act. Some trade union officials whom I know, along with the National Farmers' Union, as well as employers in the food processing industry have worked hard to make credible the rules governing the regularisation of the position of people employed by gangmasters. I am talking about regularisation from the point of view of employment law and taxation et cetera. There is a connection. There is a benefit to society of the regularisation of many of the people involved. We have only to look at the case of Morecambe Bay to know that many of those people were in a position that has parallels with that described by the noble Lord, Lord Chan.
	The amendment facilitates an active rather than a passive strategy of regularisation. The issue is not so much whether to have a process of regularising the status of some hundreds of thousands of people, but how thought-through, coherent and transparent the strategy will be. We do not want them all to stay underground in the black economy, where their situation and that of the economy and the security of the nation would be worse.
	I do not doubt that there are procedures under the immigration Acts for regularising the position of people who have been in the country for 15 years or so. However, the Bill and the parallel Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill will catalyse a whole new range of questions and there will be a timetable within which those questions will need to be answered. We need to consider how the immigration Bill will affect people's wish to come forward to try to regularise their position. I do not expect my noble friend to guesstimate this evening how many of the 500,000 will, at the end of this exercise, have their position regularised. It is not prima facie likely that the Bill and the immigration Bill will prove to be the last word on the subject.
	In conclusion, I ask my noble friend to take on board that we need an iterative process updating the rules governing the right to remain in the light of the huge changes in the architecture brought about by those two Bills. I beg to move.

Baroness Turner of Camden: I support my noble friend's amendment. I, too, contributed to the debate at Second Reading last week on the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill on a brief supplied by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. Pressure is growing for the introduction of a regularisation system. The council believes that there should be early consultation on a scheme of regularisation whereby illegals could eventually become legal and documented workers. That is an important issue and I support my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Crickhowell: The noble Lord has raised an important issue. I am only slightly put off by the horrid word "regularisation", which comes a little out of 1984. I suppose that some would say that regularisation in this context means that illegal immigrants, whatever their circumstances, must be immediately booted out. However, the noble Baroness rightly suggested that there is another possible approach. I, too, have in front of me the figures cited by the noble Lord when he moved the amendment.
	One of my noble friends who is not in the House tonight suggested to me during one of our earlier debates that we may well have a situation in which rather more—perhaps three quarters of a million or so—might suddenly have to leave the country. Of course, some of those people we probably want out of the country pretty quickly. Some of them obviously should not be here and I should not argue that they should stay. However, I suspect that, apart from those working in Chinese restaurants and the others to whom reference has been made, there are probably a good many people working for families as nurses, doing domestic work or working in essential public services whose position is not straightforward. We would face some severe social problems and economic disruption if, suddenly, we had a mass exodus. That would cause a great deal of tension and a lot of ill will.
	Some of those people have come here perfectly legitimately and then been either careless about renewing their permits or scared out of their wits that they might have to leave the country and go somewhere that they thought was dangerous and, somehow, have stayed on. The noble Lord is right to say that that issue must be studied with understanding and sympathy. A number of other countries introducing legislation of this kind have, with it, introduced an amnesty. They have found it necessary to provide an amnesty to cover the kind of situation that has been referred to. I do not know what the Government's intentions are, but it is an important issue; it ought to be considered sooner, rather than later; we should know what the Government's feelings about it are.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My noble friends Lady Turner and Lord Lea have identified an issue of concern. I fully understand why they have that concern. Before compulsory registration is introduced, the position of those foreign nationals here illegally, especially those who are in settled employment and have resided here for a period of time, should be considered sympathetically. I understand why they say that.
	Undoubtedly, this is one of the areas that would be looked at before compulsion is introduced. Nevertheless, it is right to remind Members of the Committee that the Immigration Rules already allow people who have been here lawfully for 10 years, or unlawfully for 14 years, to seek indefinite leave to remain. So, if the move to compulsion brought to notice people who had been here for a considerable period, those who had been here for 10 or 14 years in the categories that I have mentioned, could already apply for settlement here under the Immigration Rules.
	As we have just discussed, it is likely to be a number of years before the compulsion provisions are introduced. So I would hope that no one here illegally will wait that long in the hope that his or her stay will be regularised. Anyone who wants to work or reside in this country should seek to do so now under the Immigration Rules. Members of the Committee will know that we have tried to make it as easy and as straightforward as possible for those who have a legitimate basis to be in this country to do so under the rules that we have now provided. I understand my noble friend's concern and I am sure that he will understand that it would be wrong to promise any blanket amnesty.
	I hope that I can further reassure my noble friend. The introduction of a general requirement to register and obtain an identity card is for the future once the initial rollout of the identity card scheme is complete. However, I am confident that the government of the day will give sympathetic consideration to the cases of any person or people who did not quite benefit from these existing long residence provisions, but whose time here was such that it would be wrong to expect their departure from the United Kingdom to be enforced.
	I agree with my noble friend Lord Lea that it is right to be ready to look at such cases if and when they arise, but I do not think that it would be right to include a commitment to do so in this legislation. I acknowledge the support that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, gives to this measure. I see the force of what was said. There is a risk that accepting my noble friend's amendment would imply that special treatment will be accorded to illegal immigrants. There will also be a risk of uncertainty that this Government are serious about the aim of controlling immigration. One of the key purposes of the scheme is immigration enforcement, and this would be undermined. Not only that, but I fear that there is a risk that accepting this amendment might even be seen—I know that this is not what my noble friend seeks—as encouraging people to overstay their leave to remain by offering a prospect of regularisation in the future. It would not be right to do that. Identity cards are intended to reduce the pull factor by making it harder for people to live here illegally, not to imply that we will be bound to regularise the position of people here illegally when identity cards become compulsory. I reiterate to my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that we recognise their concerns. But, having voiced them, I would ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Lea of Crondall: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part to assert that this is an important question. My main contention is that, prima facie, a pretty big change is taking place in the environment of the Immigration Rules arising from this Bill and the partner Bill on immigration. It is therefore implausible to think that simply carrying on with the current Immigration Rules will deal with a huge volume of people seeking to register under the ID card scheme. Do we really want them to come forward to register and so regularise their position? Many of them will qualify to do so. I apologise, but I am rather sympathetic to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, about the aesthetics of some of the language we are using, but as George Orwell said, there are worse things than the word "regularisation".
	Now that we have some statistics which quote the figure of around half a million, perhaps the Government and the opposition parties will have the courage not to play politics here, but will try to look behind what a lot of these people are doing. We can all imagine what I would call the Daily Mail way of treating this subject, but some of us think that we should not be too intimidated and worried about what the Daily Mail says because we can look at the reality of how our economy is working at present.
	There is no rush to do this nor, perhaps I may say, is there any reason to tilt at windmills. I am grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench for the positive tone of her response, but perhaps I may put on the record that not only is there no wish on my part to undermine the immigration control system, but also that I quite specifically did not use the word "amnesty"—although a partial amnesty might be implied if one wishes to use the word. I am afraid that when my noble friend used the phrase "blanket amnesty", she was tilting at a windmill. I want to take the opportunity to make it clear that that is not the idea behind the amendment.
	On the basis that the Government will look at the picture presented by the real people involved in all the various areas of employment, at this stage I wish to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 7 agreed to.

Baroness Turner of Camden: moved Amendment No. 138:
	After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
	"REGISTRATION: VOLUNTARY NATURE
	Apart from the provisions of sections 6 and 7, registration is a voluntary matter and the Secretary of State may not exercise powers of compulsion in such cases without the authority of both Houses of Parliament."

Baroness Turner of Camden: In moving Amendment No. 138 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 161 grouped with it. I have to confess that I do not like the Bill very much. It should not be imagined that everyone on this side is happy about it. I certainly am not. It is not so much the idea of cards; we had them during the Second World War and got used to them. However, we always regarded them as temporary and I recall that we were delighted when we did not need them any more. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is quite right about that. Rather it is the creation of a national register, a database, that many of us find unacceptable. In my view it transforms the relationship between the citizen and the state. There is no suggestion either that the whole set-up is of a temporary nature to be used during a perceived emergency. Once in place, it will continue. Who knows what the future may hold? A register of the kind envisaged would be a tremendous weapon in the hands of an authoritarian government. I do not doubt the intentions of the present Government; I am sure they are entirely benign, but it may not always be like that.
	We are told that the amount of information required on each individual will be limited and that privacy will be protected. That may well be so at the beginning, but as we know, the technology exists to make the scheme very extensive, and who really wants that? Most people value their privacy. A few may not—they may write diaries intended for publication—but for many their privacy is part of their identity. Their family history, their health records, their marital—and, yes, their extra-marital—records are their personal property, to be divulged only with agreement for specific purposes.
	The reasons advanced by the proponents of the new scheme do not seem very persuasive to me. They have been discussed many times in the debate today. It is for these reasons that I have drafted a couple of amendments. Some people say they support the introduction of such a scheme; they claim they would find it useful. So let us have a genuinely voluntary scheme and say so on the face of the Bill. Incidentally, it would be a good indication of just how popular the idea really is with most people.
	The amendments also oppose the introduction of compulsion by stealth. It will not be possible under Amendment No. 161 for any provider of services, whether in the public domain or private, to insist upon the production of an ID card before goods, services or employment can be provided.
	It has been claimed again today that the system is likely to be popular, but I think few understand that an over-arching system of surveillance of the whole population is intended to which access will be relatively easy. The indications are that when people begin to realise precisely what is intended, support for the scheme would substantially diminish. I believe that the scheme should be a voluntary one. If it turns out to be popular, then consideration could be given to compulsion. But that should only become necessary, in my view, in situations of dire public danger, the like of which we have not seen since the Second World War.
	I appreciate, of course, that we discussed the issue of compulsion or not compulsion earlier today—and no doubt we will discuss it again—but my amendments are slightly different and less complex than those put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I am sure that we will come back to the issue of compulsion as against voluntariness when we discuss the matter on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to move my amendment.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: What does the noble Baroness mean at the start of her amendment by,
	"apart from the provisions of sections 6 and 7"?

Baroness Turner of Camden: My recollection is that these amendments are specifically directed to certain individuals who would be regarded by the Government as being required to register. People who are not required to register should be allowed to be volunteers.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I think Clause 6 is wider than she realises. She would not accept it from the purview of her amendment if she realised that that is the clause that would be used by the Government to make the scheme compulsory for the population at large.
	I respect the experience that the noble Baroness brings to the Committee. It made me listen to her introduction of the amendment very carefully. It carries a weight which contributions from innocents like me cannot carry. I support what she said.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The noble Baroness has done the Committee a service in bringing forward amendments which are in their very nature, as she said, more straightforward than mine. I assumed Amendment No. 138 meant something rather different from that assumed by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. I found it to have great resonance with what I am trying to achieve: an honesty whereby Clauses 6 and 7 are the only parts of the Bill which enforce compulsion. I found refuge in Amendment No. 138 in that it appears to require that before Clauses 6 and 7 come into effect, the whole process must be truly voluntary in the sense that an individual can opt into the system if he chooses but is not forced to have the document. I found this a very straightforward—I would not call it simple because the noble Baroness is never simple—way of achieving a laudable objective.
	I also welcome Amendment No. 161, which will give noble Lords the opportunity to consider, between now and Report, what should be the rights of people to obtain services to which they are freely entitled—by which I mean free at the point of use. What right do they have to continue to have access to those services without having first to apply for an identity card?
	These are essential amendments; it is unfortunate that they have been reached at our current state of play but that is the way things happen. I welcome the opportunity to consider these more between now and Report.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I, too, welcome the amendments although it would be fair to say that we have gone over quite a lot of this ground already. But they introduce one or two novel elements, and it is worth going through them to cover some of the questions they raise.
	We are trying to introduce the scheme in a practical way. We want to be thorough about it; we want it to work. Even the scheme's opponents recognise and appreciate that. We have the political authority to do it and we make no bones about that.
	The practicalities of introducing an identity card scheme are such that we did not think it right to have a "big bang" approach, as we have said before. That is why it is incremental. Identity cards are issued initially to those who apply for them either as a stand-alone item or linked to the renewal of a passport or other designated document. In this initial phase, no one who refuses to apply for an identity card could be liable for a penalty.
	Once we have designated passports under Clause 4 which will require parliamentary approval under the affirmative procedure, anyone applying for renewal of a passport will also be issued with an ID card. By that stage, we will already have biometric passports and the application process will be very similar, if not identical, for the passport and the ID card. Some people may prefer not to use the ID card that is issued to them with the passport and no one will be subject to any penalty if they choose not to apply for or renew a passport.
	For those reasons and others, I cannot support Amendment No. 138. It is unnecessary because the only provisions that can be used to compel people to obtain an identity card are those contained in Clauses 6 and 7, as has been said.
	Amendment No. 161 is also unnecessary as we already have an adequate safeguard in Clause 18, which is entitled:
	"Prohibition on requirements to produce identity cards".
	Clause 18 will make it unlawful, in advance of compulsion, for anyone to require an ID card to be produced as proof of identity unless there is also a reasonable alternative method allowed for establishing identity or, in some limited circumstances, where the requirement relates to the provision of a public service which has been linked in regulations to the identity card scheme. This means that if a bank requires proof of identity before someone opens an account, it will be able to ask for an identity card but, in its initial phase, it would have to allow for the option of producing, say, a passport or a photo driving licence as alternative proof of identity.
	Of course, it might be said that the safeguard in Clause 18 should continue after compulsion. That would undermine one of the purposes of the scheme, and it is an important one—that once every resident here can be expected to hold an identity card, that should become the gold standard of identification and there should be no bar to using it as such. Clause 18 is there to prevent organisations jumping the gun by insisting on an ID card being produced when only a small proportion of the population have been issued with them.
	I understand the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, but the ID card scheme will be rolled out incrementally over a number of years. In the initial phase, it will not be compulsory to hold or use an ID card. The second, compulsory phase will only be introduced some time after the initial roll-out, once a high proportion of the population has already been issued with an identity card. That is our case against these amendments. They are useful to debate and I hope that the noble Baroness, although she disagrees with what we are trying to do, will recognise that the way in which we are doing it is designed to make it work better and that many of the fears about penalties that might be imposed as a product of the roll-out process are not in fact there at present.

Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank my noble friend for that response, but it does not really answer my main concern because it is clear from his response that the Government regard this as a roll-on to compulsion. In other words, the eventual aim is compulsion and the Bill itself is a kind of lead in to compulsion. That is how it seems to me, even from the statement that he has given. What he says about Clause 18 is very useful, but it does not overcome the main objection and the reason for the amendments in the first place. Of course, it is very late at night to have this discussion and I have had to wait a long time to get to this amendment. There is no point in pressing this much harder at the moment, but I am sure that we will return to it. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 138A:
	Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause—
	"PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL OVER STANDARDS AND ADMINISTRATION OF ID CARDS
	(1) Parliament shall have the sole power to decide—
	(a) whether a voluntary or compulsory ID card scheme shall be introduced in the United Kingdom;
	(b) who shall be required to possess an ID card, or shall be issued with an ID card, or be entered in the National Identity Register, in the United Kingdom; and
	(c) the security standards required in any ID card or National Identity Register in the United Kingdom.
	(2) No international body may impose on any United Kingdom citizen the duty to attend or to have attended at any place for the purposes of the issue, or in connection with preparations for the issue, of an ID card and a United Kingdom citizen shall have free passage throughout the United Kingdom and the member states of the European Union without the need to fulfil any such obligation, except as shall have been agreed, or determined, by statute in the United Kingdom.
	(3) No Minister of the Crown may enter into any undertaking within the European Union to introduce an ID card scheme or identity register in the United Kingdom, or propose or agree any common standards in relation to such a scheme, unless and until Royal Assent has been given to this Act or any other statute introduced for that specific purpose."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I tabled the amendment in response to an article I saw in the Times on 25 November. I could hardly believe my eyes, but I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me in response that the Times is, most unusually, ill informed.
	The article said that the EU could share ID databases. It states that confidential personal information about British citizens could be shared with governments and the police across Europe under proposals put forward at the Commission. I understand that the story arises out of intergovernmental work that is being carried out behind the scenes on EU national identity cards. Is the Prime Minister using the UK presidency to work on agreeing common standards for ID cards? What stage have these negotiations reached? What involvement has there been by the British Parliament? What information has been provided to the British Parliament on these matters? When has any information been made available to the British Parliament? My amendment makes it clear that the UK Parliament should have the sole power to decide: whether we should have any kind of ID card scheme in this country, voluntary or compulsory; who should be required to possess an ID card or be issued with one—which should be subject to decision by this Parliament alone; and that this Parliament alone should decide on the security standards that should underpin a UK system.
	The amendment makes it clear that no UK Minister can enter into an undertaking to introduce any ID scheme within the EU or agree to any common standards within the EU until and unless Royal Assent has been given to this Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I support the amendment and can perhaps cast a little light on the questions put by my noble friend on the Front Bench. In supporting the amendment I fear that I will have to cast doubt on its usefulness even if it were to pass into law. The amendment assumes that Her Majesty's Government still have the power to refuse to sign up to an EU identity card system unless Parliament—this Parliament—has first given its consent. In other words, the amendment assumes that the United Kingdom still has the veto in this area. To understand why that may not be so, I regret that I must take your Lordships into a little of the detail of the Treaty of Nice and the subsequent Hague multi-annual programme for strengthening the EU's area of freedom, security and justice.
	I start with the Treaty of Nice, which, as your Lordships know, in the absence of the proposed EU constitution, is still the legal basis for the whole depressing project of European integration. I point out that Title IV, encompassing Articles 61 to 69 of the treaty establishing the European Community—the TEC—is entitled, "Visas, Asylum, Immigration and other Policies Related to the Free Movement of Persons". I apologise for the eternal density and dreariness of Euro-speak, but I fear that there is more to come. But experienced Euro-sceptics among your Lordships will already have pricked up their ears and asked themselves, "Is it possible that Brussels has the nerve to introduce a European ID card as a policy related to the free movement of persons?"
	If your Lordships will bear with me, I can tell you that the answer starts to emerge from Article 67 of Title IV, which was inserted into the treaty at Amsterdam in 1997. To paraphrase Article 67, it says that for five years after the signing of the Amsterdam treaty, policies related to free movement of persons as well as visas, asylum and immigration were to be decided by unanimity. In other words, for five years after Amsterdam we kept the veto on initiatives brought under Title IV. But after that period of five years, Article 67 empowered the Council to take a unanimous decision, supported by the European Parliament, to move all or parts of Title IV to the qualified majority voting procedure under Article 251 of the treaty—or the co-decision procedure, as it is known in the jargon. Under that procedure, nowadays we have some 8 per cent of the votes.
	Some of us did our best to object to Article 67 when the Bill relating to the Amsterdam treaty was going through your Lordships' House. But, as usual, we were told that we could not amend a treaty that had been stitched up in the Council of Ministers and that anyway the Government had retained the veto and could prevent Title IV moving to qualified majority voting, so we had nothing to worry about. So much for the Treaty of Amsterdam, as carried forward into the Treaty of Nice, which is the current legal basis for the European Union.
	We then move to the so-called Hague programme. In May this year, the Commission reported to the Council and the European Parliament on the programme's 10 priorities for the next five years. On page 4 of that document, we find that,
	"on 22nd December 2004 the Council was able to adopt a decision applying co-decision and qualified majority voting to all Title IV measures, with the exception of legal immigration, as of 1st January 2005".
	So the Government appear to have failed to exercise their veto on 22 December last year, and the whole of Title IV, controlling visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to the free movement of persons, seems to have passed to qualified majority voting and co-decision.
	To get some idea whether that could include identity cards, we move on to page 18 of the Hague report, where we find a heading entitled:
	"Coherent approach and harmonised solutions in the EU on biometric identifiers and data".
	The second paragraph under that heading tells us that the Commission is involved in,
	"preparation for the development of minimum standards for national ID cards from 2005 onwards".
	The third paragraph tells us that the Commission is also making preparation,
	"for the development of minimum standards for sectors specific ID cards, if appropriate, from 2005 onwards",
	which sounds rather worrying. Will the Minister tell us what those specific sectors might be?
	I may be wrong, and no doubt the Minister will tell us if I am, but I fear that that means that the United Kingdom can be outvoted in all the areas under Title IV, which now appear to include ID cards. If some noble Lords think that suggestion somewhat farfetched, I remind them of the EU's ability to produce policies that bear little or no resemblance to their purported legal justification in the treaty clauses. There have been many examples of this over the years, perhaps the best known being when Prime Minister Major thought the UK had escaped the Working Time Directive when he opted out of the Social Chapter, only to find it brought in through the back door of qualified majority voting in the provisions for health and safety at work.
	Today the EU project continues as though the people of France and the Netherlands had not voted down the proposed constitution. Written Answers I received this year on 6 July reveal that the substantial EU space programme has been based on a Council decision which is to be agreed only at the end of this year. They also reveal that the EU's new Fundamental Rights Agency in Vienna relies for its legality on Article 308 of the TEC, being the original catch-all clause in the 1957 Treaty of Rome. That allows the EU to do anything in pursuit of the Common Market provided there is unanimity in the Council. How the new Fundamental Rights Agency in Vienna is justified by this is a mystery.
	Better still, and finally, on 19 July this year the Government told me that there are no formal or informal legislative proposals or other EU initiatives which rely on the proposed constitution—now in limbo. Yet for months before the French and Dutch votes we were told by every Eurocrat in sight that the heavens would fall in and the EU would grind to a halt if the constitution was not passed. So I fear that we are dealing with people who are perfectly capable of introducing EU identity cards via the qualified majority voting system against which we would have no response if we objected to it. So I look forward to the noble Baroness's reply.

The Earl of Caithness: I too support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Anelay. I do so from a different angle. I have the honour of being a member of Sub-Committee F, the European Union Sub-Committee on Home Affairs. This is exactly the sort of issue the sub-committee should have looked at, but it has not. I am ashamed of my old department. The Home Office quite deliberately did not submit the papers for scrutiny to the sub-committee. Not only did it not submit the papers, it did not think that any information on minimum standards across the Community for identity cards should be revealed at all.
	I fear that the situation is slightly worse and that my noble friend is trying to shut the door after the horse has bolted. As I understand it, the whole question of minimum standards was agreed at the JHA Council on 1 and 2 December this year, a mere week ago. Not only was Parliament totally ignorant of what was happening; the sub-committees were totally ignorant of it happening. This was a quite deliberate policy of the Home Secretary and the Home Office. The Home Secretary promised to keep the sub-committee informed but he did not. He did not send the papers. The papers were obtained on the website of another organisation.
	This is an intolerable way to treat Parliament and to treat a sub-committee of your Lordships' House. I hope that the noble Baroness has an apology to make to all of us.

The Earl of Northesk: I also support the amendment. Notwithstanding the comments of my noble friend Lord Caithness, I do wonder whether subsection (3) of the amendment now has any relevance. As I understand it, and I hope the noble Baroness will be able to confirm this, under the UK presidency what actually happened last month is that a ministerial decision was approved, and that ministerial decision stated categorically that, come 2010, all member states were committed to introducing a biometric ID card across the board all over Europe. So I do wonder whether the capacity of this Parliament on this particular issue has been circumvented by a ministerial decision. I hope, perhaps rather less forcefully than my noble friend Lord Caithness has put it, that the noble Baroness will be able to clarify the point.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: First, I am very conscious that it is now midnight and therefore—

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: It is pumpkin time.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I may have turned into a pumpkin a long time ago.
	I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for tabling the amendment because it gives me an opportunity to explain the role that the European Union and the member states of the EU are playing in relation to identity cards. As delighted as I would be to go through with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch—as I think I may have done on a number of occasions in the past—Amsterdam, Nice and the Hague, I do not think that I shall be able to do so tonight, although I am more than happy to write to him on those details. I shall try to respond to the noble Lord this evening in short form if he is content with that.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The noble Baroness is very gracious but all I and the House need her to do is to let us know whether she disagrees with any part of the story that I have put on the record this evening.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I probably agree with quite a lot of the interpretation and the nuances. Then we would have to discuss what that actually meant in relation to the Bill and where I disagreed with the noble Lord; for example, that we did not make clear what would prevail had the constitutional treaty been implemented. There would be quite a lot to discuss. Although the noble Lord and I might enjoy that discussion, I doubt that many Members of the Committee would join in our revelry.
	The first point to note is that in drafting this Bill the United Kingdom is operating entirely on its own initiative. We are under no obligation, be it from the EU or from any other international body, to introduce identity cards. Quite separately from the proposals contained in this Bill, the United Kingdom has been working on a purely intergovernmental basis with other member states of the European Union to agree common minimum security standards for identity cards. Council conclusions based on the work of national experts on the minimum standards were agreed at the EU Justice and Home Affairs Council on 1 and 2 December, and have been published on the Europa website—so it is all there now.
	I shall set out the sound and sensible reasons for this intergovernmental work. As the Committee knows, there is no such thing as an EU identity card. Each member state legislates, if it so wishes, for its own identity cards scheme. However, in order to ensure that the principle of the free movement of persons is adhered to, each member state must accept identity cards issued by the other member states as proof of treaty rights. Indeed, we were already accepting identity cards issued by certain other European states as travel documents on a bilateral basis even before we first joined the then European Community. It has become very common since then for European citizens to be able to use their travel document, in the form of an identity card, to come here.
	It follows that if one or more member states are producing identity cards which are not secure and which are easily forged, then all the member states are open to abuse of their immigration systems. Agreeing common minimum security standards will limit the scope of such abuse. So it is in the interests of the United Kingdom to encourage the highest standard of identity cards issued by other member states so that we do not face problems with illegal immigrants attempting to use forged or improperly obtained identity cards issued by another member state to enter the United Kingdom. Thus it is in our strong interests to participate in and encourage that work even though we do not currently have an identity cards scheme and irrespective of whether we ever introduce identity cards. Whatever happens, this work will have to be undertaken. I should reiterate that the ongoing discussions relate only to minimum security standards in identity cards and are on a purely intergovernmental basis and thus non-legally binding.
	Regardless of whether the Bill receives Royal Assent, the United Kingdom will continue to co-operate on an intergovernmental basis on the issues of minimum security standards for identity cards. Whether or not we have our own identity cards scheme, it is in our interest to ensure that all those who produce an identity card issued by an EU member state as a travel document to enter the United Kingdom to demonstrate their treaty rights are entitled to that document and to those treaty rights. I hope that noble Lords will feel reassured that it is the United Kingdom Parliament alone, on its own initiative, that is legislating for the introduction of an identity card scheme in this country. The discussions that are ongoing, on an intergovernmental basis, between the member states of the European Union are aimed at addressing the problem of identity cards that are issued to a very low security standard. Those discussions do not purport to introduce, nor are they a precursor to, any single EU identity card scheme.
	I take very keenly the complaints and concerns expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in relation to the work of the Select Committee on the European Union, which is chaired by my noble friend Lord Grenfell, who wrote to the Home Office in that regard. We replied to that letter, and we made it clear that while we appreciated the wish to be involved in the work on this issue we had to stress that there was no requirement for non-legally binding documents, such as the draft that was submitted to the December Justice and Home Affairs Council, to be deposited for scrutiny. Those are the conclusions of the representatives of the member states acting on an intergovernmental basis; they are not EU Council conclusions. As recognised in the third recital to the conclusions, no legally binding standards or timetables have been imposed. This is a non-legally binding intergovernmental initiative.
	Therefore, we produced the recital, and it is specifically referred to in the fourth recital of that document. It does not affect the right of any member state to decide whether to issue an identity card. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary wrote his letter of 31 October simply to inform the Committee that the work was going on because it would be of interest to the Committee while this was taking place. We were confident, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary expressed his confidence, that agreement on these standards, which all member states now regard as important, would represent significant progress in enhancing document security and fulfilling the remit of both the Hague programme and the July Justice and Home Affairs Council.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Very briefly, as it is very late, will the noble Baroness confirm that the Commission and the European Union are taking steps to alter this position, and that they do plan to make these arrangements legally binding?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Nothing in the data that I have would indicate that is the case. The noble Lord will know that we have stressed the importance of working on an intergovernmental basis. The noble Lord also knows that intergovernmental means unanimity, and that we have our veto. We could talk about what is happening in relation to Title 4 for quite a long time. I am sure that we could talk until at least the morning on these issues, because the details are extensive. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, wishes our procedures to be robust so that we can make sure that those who come here using the European travel documents as a result of free movement can be properly processed through our immigration procedures. He wishes us to have the strongest and most robust provisions to guarantee that our immigration rules are not flouted in a way that is improper. The minimum standards will help us to secure that, so that those European states that may not have the most robust system can be encouraged to raise their standard to one that we believe would be more appropriate.

The Earl of Northesk: Will the noble Baroness comment on the observation that I made about the ministerial decision made last month under the UK presidency? It is important to get a finger on the pulse of this matter. As I understand it, the ministerial decision categorically approved a pan-European basis for the ID card. I absolutely understand the argument that it is not a legal commitment; none the less, the decision was made at ministerial level to commit the whole of Europe to an ID card system. I seek some clarification on that point.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: That is not right. The commitment was for minimum standards. If—which is not admitted—any country chooses to have an identity card, that card should comply with certain minimum standards so that it can be used with confidence throughout the Union. The commitment does not oblige us to have an identity card; it creates certain safeguards so that other European countries which choose to have an identity card have an appropriately high standard for the integrity of that card. In that way, we can be confident that when the card is used by another European citizen coming here it is a genuine card and one upon which we can rely. It is in our interests to ensure that countries which choose to have an ID card do so robustly and with integrity.

The Earl of Caithness: I am very disappointed by the noble Baroness's reply. She hid behind words in a manner that is not usual for her. Notwithstanding the correct point that she made, does she agree that, given that the minimum standards came about as a result of the Hague programme and that they were based on a Council resolution and prepared using facilities and paper in Brussels, it would have been courteous for the matter to come before the sub-committee of your Lordships' House and that not to have done so was to show disrespect and disregard for our committee system?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I assure the noble Earl that it was not the intention of the Home Office or my right honourable friend the Home Secretary—and it would never have been mine—to show anything other than the utmost respect for the Select Committee on the European Union. The noble Earl, of all people, knows the high regard in which the committee is held, the attention that is paid to it and the information that is given to it to ensure that it can do its work. The decision clearly made by the Home Office was that this was not a matter that had to go before the committee. The committee was apprised of it as a matter of courtesy as that was thought to be right but, according to the Justice and Home Affairs Council, no procedure demanded that such a submission should be made. That was contained in the letter written by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. I understand the sensitivity expressed by the noble Earl in that regard, but I assure him that no discourtesy or disrespect was intended by the process adopted on this occasion.

Lord Crickhowell: I want to ask a question. I have listened with great interest to the exchange that we have had on very important issues. I hope that the noble Baroness will put the letter that she writes to my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch in the Library or that she will make it available to those who have taken part in this debate. But I am not clear whether she has said that all the points covered by my noble friend's amendment are exactly as my noble friend said they should be. We have been so engaged on the issue of the Select Committee's exact position in Europe that I, for one, am confused. I simply want to know whether my noble friend's requirements are met and, in that case, is the Minister able to accept my noble friend's amendment?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I do not accept the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, rightly moved it to enable me to explain what was done by the Government in relation to inter-governmental procedure and decisions that were made at the Council. I thanked her warmly, I hope, for giving me that opportunity and I have sought to explain what has happened. I believe that I have answered all the questions that she raised; at the same time I tried to allay the concerns that were also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I hope that I have been as comprehensive as I can be at a quarter past midnight.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the noble Baroness and will of course consider her answers very carefully between now and Report to see whether there is any need to come back with this particular amendment, or whether my noble friends might consider an alternative. When it comes to expertise in these matters, I yield to my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell for pointing out that it would be helpful if the Minister's letter to my noble friend could be put in the Library.
	My concern was heightened when I listened to my noble friend the Earl of Caithness explain how Sub-Committee F appeared not to have been kept as informed as perhaps it felt that it should, particularly when it seems that the Home Secretary had promised to keep it informed and did not do so. I am not party to any correspondence between the Minister's noble friend Lord Grenfell, who chairs that sub-committee, and the Home Secretary. That is also not relevant to my amendment and, therefore, I just note that I am sure that the noble Baroness has the highest regard for the sub-committee and will bring this matter to the attention of her right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
	At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 139 and 140 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at eighteen minutes past midnight.